State of Vermont State of VermontSecretary of State
THIS IS A WORLD WIDE WEB PUBLICATION OF THE VERMONT SECRETARY OF STATE
(If you are reading a paper version of this document, you may find the original at
www.sec.state.vt.us)
| Return to Secretary of State's HOME PAGE |
Greetings...
What follows is a collection of questions and answers that were considered and discussed during this year's moderators' workshops, held on February 3 and 12.
We present them here in the hopes that they may provide a useful guide, but with the understanding that no guide could possibly cover all or even most of the procedural questions that may confront a moderator at any time. The only thing you can predict for sure is that some of the questions will be unpredictable.
Two things are important to remember in this regard. Ultimately you have to make your best call on these matters, and always you need to remember that the meeting belongs to the people. It's is important to give the people the opportunity to overrule you and to head off in their own direction if, after they have heard your advice, they choose to ignore it.
We hope the following commentary can make your advice a bit more informed and a bit more persuasive, however. This document represents a collection of the insights offered by your colleagues who participated in the workshops, and we are grateful for their help.
As usual, we will be available for questions in our office until 9 p.m. on Monday, March 2, and until 9 on Town Meeting Day as well.
A paper copy of this document is being mailed to each local moderator. Anyone who would like to be notified electronically each time similar documents are posted on our Web site (http://www.sec.state.vt.us) may e-mail us at publist@sec.state.vt.us with a request.
1. THE SITUATION:
The annual meeting is called to order by a member of the select board. It seems the moderator is unable to attend. The select board has appointed an individual to serve for the duration of the meeting. The moderator is introduced and reads the following article: "Shall the Town elect not to tax business personal property?"
Joe Burns, local business leader, makes the motion; Sally Ride seconds. The moderator states the question by informing voters that the motion on the floor is "Shall the Town elect not to tax business personal property."
The moderator recognizes Joe Burns. Joe extols the virtues of repealing the tax.
When he finishes, the moderator recognizes Henry James. Henry disagrees, somewhat heatedly, with some of Joe's assertions.
Joe leaps to his feet to rebut some, if not all of what Henry is saying. Henry responds tartly to Joe's defense of the repeal. Joe, again, responds. Back and forth the two battle. Other voters enter into the debate; some trying to get the moderator to recognize them; others shouting out their thoughts. The moderator quickly calls for a recess.
DISCUSSION:
What happened here?
First, we had a moderator appointed by the select board. If a moderator is unable to preside at any meeting, the statutes provide that a member of the select board calls the meeting to order until a moderator pro tempore (for that time) can be elected. The select board has no authority to appoint a moderator. 17 V.S.A. § 2657.
Second, the moderator lost control of the debate. How and why did that happen?
Before a voter can speak in debate, he or she must have obtained the floor, i.e., he or she must be recognized by the moderator. Both Joe and Henry had initially been recognized by the chair, but they did not wait for the moderator to recognize them after their initial speeches, because they were too busy rebutting one another.
If Joe wanted to rebut Henry, or vice versa, the procedure should have been to get the moderator to recognize him, which the moderator could do -- as long as no other voter wanted the floor. Without recognition from the moderator, Joe and Henry did not have the floor.
What else went awry?
Members of an assembly can speak no longer than ten minutes when a debatable motion is immediately pending. Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 382.
If a voter yields the floor before his ten minutes has expired, he is considered to have waived his right to the remaining time. When Joe sat down after his first comments on the proposed repeal, he waived his right to his remaining time.
The same rule applied to Henry, once he had spoken.
Furthermore, no voter is entitled to the floor a second time in debate on the same motion as long as any other member who has not spoken on the motion desires the floor. Although other voters were seeking recognition, Joe and Henry had usurped the moderator and taken control of the debate.
Somewhat inadvertently, the moderator did succeed in accomplishing something that Robert's recommends. Robert's recommends that where the moderator knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the pending motion, he should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure.
Any other problems?
At the moderator's workshop on February 12, many moderators felt that the motion on the floor "to elect not to tax business personal property" was a negative motion. There were several suggestions to amend the motion to state "to elect to tax business personal property," but some moderators felt that that motion was also confusing.
The statute, 32 V.S.A. § 3849(a) actually uses the term "elect not to tax." The final consensus was to consider the article as warned.
2. THE SITUATION:
The moderator read the article: Shall the town appropriate $600 for the ABC Program?
Sue Sherman made the motion, which was seconded by Gina Davis. The moderator stated the question and proceeded to speak on behalf of the ABC Program. The moderator felt it was very successful with the small children who attended and urged the voters to give the program the requested funds.
The moderator then queried the voters as to whether anyone else wished to speak. No one responded.
The moderator asked the voters if they were ready for the question. Hearing no objections, he called for the ayes and nays. The article passed.
DISCUSSION:
Is it appropriate for the moderator to speak to a pending motion?
Robert's recommends that the moderator not participate in debate. Even though the moderator has the same rights in debate as any other voter, the impartiality required of his position precludes exercising those rights. Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 389. Only when a moderator believes that something so crucial has been overlooked that his or her duties as a voter outweigh the duty to preside may he or she speak in debate, and those times should be extremely rare.
In order to speak in debate, the moderator must relinquish the chair and should not return to it until the pending question has been disposed of, because he has shown himself to be partisan in regard to this particular subject.
Obviously, when there is an Appeal from the moderator's ruling or a point of order, the rule against the moderator speaking in debate does not apply. These debates relate to the function of presiding, and the moderator can speak in these cases.
At both workshops, the question arose regarding at what point the moderator should step aside if he or she wished to speak on the motion. Moderators at the workshop seemed to feel the moderator should step aside before the moderator states the question on the motion. The moderator should step aside either prior to reading the article from the warning or immediately prior to stating the question, if he or she wishes to speak in debate on the motion.
3. THE SITUATION:
The moderator reads the article: "To see how the Town will have its taxes collected on real and personal property and to set the due date."
A voter rises and moves to collect taxes by a tax collector, appointed by the select board, whose salary shall be set by the select board, and that said taxes be collected in two equal installments due August 1, 1997 and February 1, 1998 with a discount of 2 percent on the entirety if paid by August 1, 1997.
The motion is seconded. The moderator restates the voter's proposal. Much debate ensues.
A voter interrupts the voter speaking with a point of order. The moderator chastises the voter for interrupting the voter who had the floor and asks for a second to the point of order. A second is forthcoming.
The voter who raised the point of order wonders if the assembly is not violating its own rules by considering issues which were not warned and are not germane to the warned article.
The moderator rules that the point of order is not timely. The voter who made the point of order moves to appeal the decision of the moderator and the appeal is seconded.
The moderator explains to the voters that the question pending before them is: "Shall the decision of the moderator be sustained?" The voters affirm the moderator's ruling.
Debate on the main motion has lagged. The moderator asks if the body is ready for the question. The assembly responds in the affirmative.
The question is: Will the town collect its taxes by a tax collector, appointed by the select board, whose salary shall be set by the select board, and that said taxes be collected in two equal installments due August 1, 1997 and February 1, 1998 with a discount of 2 percent on the entirety if paid by August 1, 1997? The question is decided in the negative.
DISCUSSION:
WOW!
The moderator should have ruled that the voter's motion was not germane, because it introduced a multitude of items that had not been duly warned -- collection of taxes in installments with no installments warned; a discount, with no discount warned; and taxes collected by an appointed tax collector. (Tax collectors are not appointed. They are elected if the town so orders.)
Despite the moderator's chastisement, a point of order can be made when another has the floor (Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 249), and a point of order does not need to be seconded.
However, the moderator was correct in ruling that the point of order was not timely. If a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the situation arises.
If the moderator is stating the question on a motion which is out of order, the time to raise the point of order is when the chair states the motion. After debate has begun on such a motion -- no matter how clearly out of order the motion may be -- a point of order is too late.
It might be argued that the point of order wasn't too late, because when a motion is in violation of law -- approving articles which have not been duly warned -- so that the action proposed by the motion would be null and void even if the motion were adopted.
In those cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order. However, it's not clear whether, if adopted, the article would have been null and void.
Moderators at the workshops thought the basic problem here was with the article as warned, because it was not specific enough, which led to a lot of the ensuing confusion. We can't argue with that conclusion.
Another question was raised in regard to an appeal of the moderator's ruling. Is an appeal debatable?
According to Robert's, an appeal is debatable unless it relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking, unless it relates to the priority of business, or unless it is made while the immediately pending question is undebatable.
Robert's goes on to state that when an appeal is debatable, no member is allowed to speak more than once except the moderator.
The first time the moderator speaks in debate on the appeal, he or she is entitled to preference over other members seeking recognition. He or she does not have to leave the chair to speak in debate.
Even when an appeal is undebatable, the moderator can, when stating the question, give the reasons for his decision without stepping aside.
Someone asked why it wasn't imperative to reconsider this motion after it was decided in the negative. State law was changed in 1993 to state that if no date is fixed by the municipality for the payment of taxes, the date for the payment of taxes shall be 30 days from the date of mailing of the notice to the taxpayer. 32 V.S.A. §§ 4772 & 4792.
4. THE SITUATION:
The article is read by the moderator: To see if the Town will vote to transfer $135,000 out of the reserve fund for the purchase of the Snow property?
A motion is made and seconded to transfer $135,000 out of the reserve fund for the purchase of the Snow property. The moderator states the question. Debate ensues.
The select board is asked what would happen if this article is voted down. The select board states that the money would be raised in taxes. A motion is made and seconded to amend the main motion to state: To see if the Town will appropriate $135,000 for the purchase of the Snow property?
Another motion is made to amend the motion to read: To see if the Town will appropriate $67,500 for the purchase of the Snow property with the balance of $67,500 to be transferred from the reserve fund.
A voter wishes to make a third amendment to the pending motion. The moderator states that an amendment of the third degree is not permitted. The moderator then states the secondary amendment: To see if the Town will appropriate $67,500 for the purchase of the Snow property with the balance of $67,500 to be transferred from the reserve fund. There is little debate. The moderator asks if the body is ready for the pending question. Hearing no objections, he asks for all those in favor to say aye, which generates a loud response. He asks for those opposed to the pending amendment and gets a smattering of nays. The amendment passes.
He then asks the voters if they are ready for the question on the primary amendment which is to see if the Town will appropriate $135,000 for the purchase of the Snow property. The primary amendment is defeated. The main motion, as amended (appropriating $67,500 and taking $67,500 from the reserve fund), is passed by voice vote.
DISCUSSION:
The moderator was right in declining to allow an amendment of the third degree. Robert's advises that an amendment of the third degree is not allowed, because it causes the situation to become too complicated.
Where he erred was in taking a vote on the primary amendment after the secondary amendment had passed. A secondary amendment is a change in a pending primary amendment -- a secondary amendment does not apply to the main motion.
In other words, if the voters approve the secondary amendment, they have amended the primary amendment. The motion then before the body is whether to approve the main motion, as amended.
One might question whether the amendment to appropriate was germane, since the original motion did not contain any reference to appropriation of money. (One also might wonder how the select board thought that a defeat of an article asking for reserve fund monies allowed the board to appropriate that amount of money).
The other item of interest is the treatment of the amended motion. If the secondary motion is adopted, as above, is the moderator required to take a vote on the main motion, as amended, or is the amended motion approved?
Robert's states that the adoption of the motion to amend does not adopt the motion thereby amended; that motion remains pending in its modified form. Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 127. If the main motion, as amended, is defeated, the original main motion is pending. (That motion may then be amended in some other manner). This article engendered a lengthy debate on the treatment of amendments at the workshop on the 12th. The main motion was to transfer $135,000 out of the reserve fund for the property. A primary amendment is made to appropriate $135,000 to purchase the property. A secondary amendment was made to appropriate $67,500 and to transfer $67,500 out of the reserve fund. The questions of germaneness as to amending transferring out of the reserve fund to appropriating were ignored.
The issue commanding attention was how to treat these amendments.
The secondary amendment would be offered first. If it passed (to appropriate $67,500 and transfer $67,500), the primary amendment would then be whether to appropriate $67,500 and transfer $67,500. The secondary amendment amends the primary amendment, so if the secondary amendment passes, it becomes the primary amendment. However, if the primary amendment (to appropriate $67,500 and transfer $67,500) was not to a voter's liking she could rise and make a secondary amendment to the pending primary amendment.
The question then arose -- would the moderator allow the primary amendment to be made again (this time as the secondary amendment). The sense of the moderators in attendance seemed to be that they would allow the primary amendment to be made again (as a secondary amendment), because it had not yet been considered and/or voted on by the assembly.
5. THE SITUATION:
The moderator reads the article: To see if the town school district will raise through local taxes the sum of $575,364, less any additional state aid, to defray the expenses of the Town school district ($1,793,149) for the school year beginning July 1, 1998.
The motion is moved and seconded and stated by the moderator. A voter rises to object to consideration of the motion. The moderator inquires as to whether there is a second. The motion to object to consideration is seconded.
A school director rises to argue for consideration of the motion. The voter argues that it is too early to approve the school budget. No one knows what the ramifications of Act 60 are, and the school district should meet again in a month or so to take up the budget question. The moderator allows the debate.
The moderator then asks whether the question should be considered? Those opposed to considering the question do not have two-thirds of the voters in their corner, and the objection to consideration is defeated. The school budget is ultimately approved.
DISCUSSION:
The motion to object to consideration is neither debatable nor amendable. It also doesn't require a second. It is in order if it is made before debate has begun or before a subsidiary motion has been stated by the moderator.
Moderators also raised the issue that this school district was actually approving only the amount to be raised in taxes instead of the total budget amount. Voters must appropriate the total amount to be spent -- not just the amount to be raised in taxes.
6. THE SITUATION:
A huge turnout is in attendance to vote on the school budget, which has been under attack by a group of voters. The moderator reads the article: To see if the voters will appropriate $7,342,896 for support of the schools in the next fiscal year? A voter moves the motion which is seconded. The moderator states the question.
The moderator recognizes a budget opponent. The opponent states the group's concerns about the school budget. The moderator recognizes a budget proponent who lauds the budget put together by the school directors.
Before the moderator can recognize another budget opponent, a voter rises, is recognized by the moderator and makes a motion to call the previous question which is quickly seconded. The moderator declines to entertain the motion, and the debate ensues -- an opponent and then a proponent.
Again, a voter rises, is recognized and makes the motion to call the previous question, and the motion is again seconded. The moderator explains that a motion to call the previous question requires a two-thirds vote. The vote is taken, and those who wish to close debate prevail by getting a two-thirds vote.
The moderator states the main motion, once again: To see if the voters will appropriate $7,342,896 for support of the schools in the next fiscal year, and it is overwhelmingly approved.
DISCUSSION:
Does the moderator have the right to decline to entertain a motion?
No, even if the motivation was to allow the budget opponents an opportunity to state their case. More than a majority of voters at the meeting decided that they were not interested in extensive debate. Although that may seem somewhat tyrannical, it's not up to the moderator to protect the minority.
7. THE SITUATION:
The moderator reads the article as warned: Will the town authorize the select board to purchase a new truck by borrowing a sum of money not to exceed $50,000, to be paid back in five annual installments of not more than $12,000 per year?
Joe Jones makes the motion which is seconded by Dan Collins. The moderator states the question.
The moderator recognizes Dan Collins who proceeds to explain why the town needs a new truck. George Irwin is recognized by the moderator and rises to express the viewpoint that the town spends altogether too much money on equipment. In George's opinion, there is no need for a new truck. The old truck will last a few more years, and the town road crew should make do with what it has.
Robert Jones is recognized. Robert explains that the maintenance on the old truck is such that it's almost more expensive than buying a new truck. Hank Ryan states that if the road crew took better care of the town trucks, the trucks would last longer. Joe Jones and Sam Quinn rise to be recognized. The moderator recognizes Sam Quinn who feels compelled to defend the road crew and its driving habits.
Dan Collins rises and makes a motion to call the previous question which is seconded by Joe Jones. George Irwin rises and moves to lay the motion on the table which is quickly seconded. The moderator rules the motion to lay on the table out of order, because it did not take precedence over the motion to call the previous question.
The pending question is: Will the town authorize the select board to purchase a new truck by borrowing a sum of money not to exceed $50,000 to be paid back in five annual installments of not more than $12,000 per year? The moderator explains that a two-thirds vote is necessary to adopt the the motion.
A voice vote is taken. The moderator cannot determine whether the motion has passed. A division is called. The motion to purchase the truck fails, because less than two-thirds of the voters vote yes.
DISCUSSION:
What happened here?
Joe Jones made the motion, but he did not speak on the motion initially. When he rose later in the meeting to speak, the moderator recognized Sam Quinn.
According to Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 30, if the member who made the motion claims the floor and has not already spoken on the question (Joe had not already spoken), he is entitled to be recognized in preference to other members.
The pending motion was to call the previous question when George Irwin moved to lay the motion on the table. The moderator ruled that the motion to lay on the table was out of order, because a motion to lay on the table did not take precedence over the motion to call the previous question. The moderator was wrong. The motion to lay on the table takes precedence over all subsidiary motions (a motion to call the previous question is a subsidiary motion). Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 208.
However, even though the moderator was wrong in principle about ranking of motions, in this case he was right in ruling the motion to lay on the table out of order. That is because the motion to lay on the table is supposed to be used only to temporarily lay a pending question aside when something else of immediate urgency has arisen. In this case, there was nothing of immediate urgency which the meeting needed to consider. Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 207.
If George Irwin wished to avoid consideration of the question, a motion to postpone indefinitely might have been appropriate, but a motion to postpone indefinitely does not take precedence over a motion to call the previous question, so George would have lost the battle anyway.
The moderator neglected to take a vote on whether the assembly wanted to call the previous question which does require a two-thirds vote. Instead, he called the question for the assembly and then erroneously required a two-thirds vote on whether to borrow money for a new truck.
Because of the two-thirds requirement, the motion failed. Hope the moderator doesn't need his road plowed or sanded for a while!!!
8. THE SITUATION:
The moderator reads the question: Shall the town pay the town treasurer a salary in lieu of fees, and if so approved, how much?
Sue Roberts made the motion which was seconded by Frank James. The moderator states the question, and recognizes Sue Roberts, who explains that due to the fact that the amount of taxes collected by the treasurer will be greatly decreased due to Act 60, it is necessary for the town to ensure that the treasurer earns a living wage.
John Henry rises and is recognized. He moves to amend the main motion to add the words "and the delinquent tax collector" after the word "treasurer," which is seconded by Ruby Barnes.
Ralph Leonard moves to divide the question so that the assembly votes on whether to pay the delinquent tax collector a salary, whether to pay the town treasurer a salary, and, finally, how much to pay each of the positions. Leonard's motion is seconded.
The moderator asks if the assembly is ready for the question of whether to divide the question. A voter asks a point of order. What question is it that we are dividing?
After some review (where's a parliamentarian when you need her?) the moderator agrees that the motion to amend the question must be considered prior to the motion to divide the question. The amendment is adopted by voice vote, and the motion to divide the question is also approved.
DISCUSSION:
A motion to divide the question takes precedence over the main motion and a motion to postpone indefinitely.
However, a motion to divide the question cannot be made while an amendment to the main motion is pending, and our moderator just found out why!!! You need to know what the question is before you divide it.
Is the motion to amend the main motion by adding "and the delinquent tax collector" after the word "treasurer" permissible? We think that such an amendment would not be germane, because it broadens the scope of the question beyond what was warned.
What is necessary for a motion to divide the question?
A motion to divide the question must clearly state the manner in which the question is to be divided. The maker of the motion in the above example did indicate how the question was to be divided. It must be seconded. It's not debatable, but it is amendable, so you could amend how the question was to be divided, but you could not debate its merits.
9. THE SITUATION:
The moderator reads the article: To see if the voters of the town school district will approve the school district budget of $1,415,508.52 for the ensuing school year, less state aid and other revenues received?
Sue Martin moves the question, seconded by Dorothy Miller. Sue reviews the changes in the budget briefly and states that the increase from the previous budget year is negligible. She asks the assembly for their support.
Ann Mills rises. Although she is supportive of her school, she feels that even a small increase is too much to ask this year. Voters are not receiving raises themselves. Everyone is pinched financially. Ann offers an amendment to reduce the budget to what it was last year -- $1,212,648.25 -- which is seconded by Jeff Waite.
John Rogers rises and moves to amend the budget to $1,000,000, which is seconded by Henry Lamb. Skip Jones rises and offers an amendment to the budget of $1,500,000, which is seconded.
The moderator asks if the voters are ready for the question: To see if the voters will approve a budget of $1,500,000 for the ensuing year? The amendment is defeated by voice vote.
The moderator calls for a vote on whether to adopt the amendment to appropriate $1,000,000, which is approved by voice vote.
A school board member rises to make a motion to amend the budget to $1,356,000.00. The moderator asks if the body is ready to vote on the amendment to fix the school budget at $1,356,000. The amendment is defeated.
A voter rises and offers an amendment of $1,410,000. The moderator declares the motion out of order, because it is nearly identical to the main motion. The motion on the floor is to amend the budget to what it was last year - $1,212,648.25.
A school board member rises and moves to adjourn the meeting. The moderator declares the motion out of order.
The question is whether to amend the main motion to $1,212,648.25. The amendment is adopted. Will the voters adopt the main motion as amended? The voters adopt the main motion as amended.
DISCUSSION:
A small problem -- more than two amendments on the floor at the same time -- one for $1,212,648.25; one for $1,000,000 and one for $1,500,000. The moderator was lucky.
The last amendment -- $1,500,000 -- was defeated. A secondary amendment -- in this case $1,000,000 -- cannot be amended. Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 130. The moderator might have suggested to the maker of the $1,500,000 motion that if the secondary amendment was disapproved, that the moderator would entertain his proposed amendment.
The motion to amend to $1,410,000 was not allowed by the moderator, because the moderator believed that it was nearly identical to the main motion. The moderator was correct in declining to accept an amendment that was nearly identical to the main motion. Such an amendment is frivolous in that its adoption would be like adopting the main motion.
There is a process called "filling the blanks." To use the process for "filling the blanks," a voter must move to create a blank, and the motion must be seconded. A moderator could also suggest the creation of a blank, if there were no objection.
A motion to create a blank can also be made and voted on while a primary or secondary amendment is pending.
In this example, when the motion to amend the budget to $1,500,000 was made, a voter (or the moderator) could have initiated the "fill in the blanks" system. If "fill in the blanks" was adopted, the amounts in the pending amendments -- $1,212,648.25 and $1,000,000 -- become proposals for filling the blanks.
A motion to create a blank is neither debatable nor amendable. Once a blank has been created any number of voters, without a second, can propose a number for filling it. A voter cannot suggest more than one proposal for filling the blank unless he receives unanimous consent to do so.
Each proposal for filling the blank is debatable and is voted on separately until one is approved by a majority.
When voting to fill the blank, especially with numbers, it is advisable to start with the figure that is least likely to be approved. In this manner, the moderator assures that each proposal is properly considered. For example, if the moderator started with the smallest sum, it might be approved, leaving no opportunity for the voters to express their favor or disfavor with the other amounts proposed.
What about the motion to adjourn by the school board member? Was the moderator correct in declaring that motion out of order?
A motion to adjourn is, in most cases, a privileged motion, which would take precedence over pending motions to amend a main motion. However, if the effect of the motion to adjourn, if adopted, would be to dissolve the meeting with no provision for another meeting, the motion to adjourn is a main motion -- not a privileged motion. Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pg. 233.
In the case of an annual meeting where there is no provision for another meeting if the motion to adjourn is adopted, the main motion to adjourn would not be in order and it would not take precedence over pending motions to amend.
10. THE SITUATION:
The moderator reads the question: To see if the town will appropriate the sum of $50,000 to the fire department to supplement the reserve fund monies of $150,000 to allow the department to purchase a new fire truck.
Jack James makes the motion which is seconded by Lee Smith. Debate ensues. It soon becomes apparent that many of the voters believe that a new fire truck is not a priority. Sue Smith rises and moves to amend the main motion to state that the town "not" appropriate the sum of $50,000, which is seconded by Amy Rivers. The moderator rules the amendment out of order.
Jack James calls the previous question, which is seconded. The moderator asks if the meeting is ready for the question. The previous question is moved on the fire truck appropriation. All in favor. All opposed. The ayes are overwhelming, so the motion to call the previous question passes by a two-thirds vote.
The pending question is whether the town will appropriate the sum of $50,000 to supplement the reserve fund monies of $150,000 to purchase a new fire truck.
Before the moderator can call for the vote, seven voters stand and request a paper ballot. Balloting ensues. The motion is defeated, 108-98.
The moderator proceeds to read the next article, which is moved and seconded. Before the moderator can state the question, Jack James moves to reconsider the previous question, which is seconded. The moderator denies the request for reconsideration.
DISCUSSION:
A negative motion should not be allowed by the moderator. If the voters do not want this motion to pass, they should vote against it. Negative motions are confusing, because it is hard for voters to ascertain what the effect is of voting for or against a motion framed in the negative.
Seven voters are allowed by state law to request a paper ballot. 17 V.S.A. § 2658. But the moderator went astray when he refused to allow the motion for reconsideration. According to 17 V.S.A. § 2661(a), reconsideration at the same meeting is appropriate before the assembly has begun consideration of another article.
What constitutes consideration of another article? Is it when the next article is read; when the main motion is moved and seconded; or when the motion is stated?
Robert's distinguishes between bringing a motion before the assembly and consideration of that motion. "Neither the making nor the seconding of a motion places it before the assembly; only the chair can do that, by . . . stating the question. When the chair has stated the question, the motion is pending. It is then open to debate . . ." (Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pp. 31-41).
Once the next motion is placed before the assembly by the moderator, it is too late to move to reconsider the vote on the previous article. In the example above, the moderator has not yet stated the question, and, therefore, the motion to reconsider is in order.
11. THE SITUATION:
To elect two school directors for a term of one year each.
The moderator asked for nominations for one seat for school director. John Jones, Ann Smith and Abe Allen were nominated. There were no seconds to any of the nominations. A request to vote by paper ballot was sustained. At the end of three rounds of balloting no candidate had received a majority.
On the fourth round, the moderator dropped the name of the candidate receiving the least number of votes -- Abe Allen. Ann Smith was elected. The moderator asks for nominations for the second seat. Abe Allen and John Jones are nominated and John Jones is elected.
DISCUSSION:
No seconds are required for nominations from the floor. (Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., p. 423). Robert's provides for repeated balloting until a majority is received by a candidate.
State law, however, prescribes a process where three rounds of balloting are conducted. After three rounds, if a majority is not achieved by any of the candidates, the candidate receiving the least number of votes is dropped from the next and succeeding rounds of balloting until a majority is received. 17 V.S.A. § 2660.
A request to vote by paper ballot is unnecessary, because state law requires that school directors be elected by ballot. 16 V.S.A. § 423. Selectmen, listers and auditors are also required to be elected by ballot. 17 V.S.A. § 2646(4), (5), and (6).
State law allows a paper ballot upon request of seven voters, 17 V.S.A. § 2658, which overrides the requirement in Robert's Rules for a majority vote in order to use paper ballot (Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., p. 406). State law and Robert's Rules require a majority vote to be elected to an office (17 V.S.A. § 2660(b) and Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., p. 410).
To determine how many votes were cast, blank votes are discarded but spoiled ballots are counted. (Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., pp. 409-411). Please note that the necessity for a majority vote only applies to elections at a traditional town meeting. Australian ballot elections require candidates to receive a plurality, not a majority.
12. THE SITUATION:
The paper ballot on the highway budget ends in a tie. Should the moderator vote to break the tie?
DISCUSSION:
Robert's states that if the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he or she can vote as any other member when the vote is by ballot.
In all other cases the presiding officer can, but is not obliged to, vote whenever his or her vote will affect the result. (Robert's Rules of Order, 1990 ed., p. 400). In the above example, the moderator could have cast a paper ballot along with the other voters.
If the moderator has already voted, Robert's reminds us that the moderator cannot vote twice, once as a member, and once in the capacity of presiding officer.
Robert's is instructive when it makes the distinction between paper ballot votes and voice votes/divisions. There are remedies for a tie vote or for a one-vote margin. Reconsideration allows the assembly another opportunity to consider the issue, and the moderator does not have to substitute a personal judgment for the will of the assembly.
Want to read more?
Review Notes From the 1996 Moderators Workshop
Go to Secretary of State's Home Page
E-mail questions and comments about this page to
the Webeditor
Technical editor is Nick Hayer (nick@sec.state.vt.us)