Voting counting of a vote is that person is not present

[Guest DT Heiner]

I was out of the state when a vote was taken on a motion. The vote was classed as unamious even though I did not vote,  why? I would view it as a majority. Where in Roberts rules do I find this?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I was out of the state when a vote was taken on a motion. The vote was classed as unamious even though I did not vote,  why? I would view it as a majority. Where in Roberts rules do I find this?

"Why?"

 

Because a unanimous vote is were there were no votes cast in opposition.

 

You were not present to cast a vote in opposition.

So the vote was unanimous.

[Edgar Guest]

Nothing in RONR suggests that a vote should be "classed as unanimous". It has no parliamentary meaning and, as you seem to suggest, could be misinterpreted to mean that every member was in favor when, in fact, it only means that every member who was present and voted was in favor. You might suggest that the minutes be corrected/amended to remove the characterization of the vote as "unanimous".

[Richard Brown]

How and by whom was the vote "classed as unanimous"?  Did the secretary describe it that way in the minutes?  Or did someone else describe it that way?

 

As others pointed out, that is not a term used by RONR.  RONR makes no reference at all that I can find about unanimous votes.  Although people may properly describe a vote as unanimous if there are no dissenting votes, it is not a term used in RONR.  If your secretary described the vote that way in the minutes, I would ask that the minutes be corrected to reflect simply that the motion was adopted.  If it was a counted vote, it would be permissible for her to include the actual vote totals in the minutes. 

 

RONR does make repeated references do doing things by "unanimous consent", but that has a precise meaning in RONR and is applied to those situations where something is adopted without objection.  The minutes are usually approved by using unanimous consent.  Usually in those situations, if it seems clear to the chair that all or a vast majority of the members support a motion, especially if it is something uncontroversial, he will say, "Is there any objection to the motion?" and will pause.  If nobody objects, he will then say something like, "hearing no objection, the motion is adopted."   That is what RONR is referring to when it talks about doing things with unanimous consent.  Some members may actually oppose the motion, but if nobody objects, it is deemed adopted by unanimous consent.

 

See pages 54 - 56 in RONR for more on doing things by unanimous consent.

[Edgar Guest]

If it was a counted vote, it would be permissible for her to include the actual vote totals in the minutes. 

 

I suspect it would be not just permissible but required. When it comes to the minutes, there's not much that RONR leaves to the secretary's discretion.

[Richard Brown]

I suspect it would be not just permissible but required. When it comes to the minutes, there's not much that RONR leaves to the secretary's discretion.

 

I agree, at least "if a counted vote was ordered".  RONR p 470, lines 29 - 30.   I think it's not so clear if the chair calls for a show of hands and declares the outcome without counting the votes, but maybe the secretary did count them.  We don't have the details of how this vote was conducted.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

. . . that is not a term used by RONR.  RONR makes no reference at all that I can find about unanimous votes. 

RONR does use the term, even though RONR does not define the term.

 

See:

p. 263

“… even by unanimous vote.”

“… or an actual unanimous vote because …”

p. 310

“Even a unanimous vote at a meeting is insufficient …”

p. 412

“… cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote.”

p. 588

“… even by a unanimous vote cannot change that meaning …”

 

[Edgar Guest]

I think it's not so clear if the chair calls for a show of hands and declares the outcome without counting the votes, but maybe the secretary did count them. 

 

I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't matter whether the secretary counted the hands or not. Just as (unless it's a roll-call vote) she shouldn't record how each member voted even if she knows.

[Richard Brown]

RONR does use the term, even though RONR does not define the term.

 

 That's true, it does.  Thanks, Kim.  I was looking for a definition of "unanimous vote", and, as you said, it isn't there....or I couldn't find it.  We do use the term somewhat regularly and I was somewhat surprised to see that there is no actual definition of the term.  I've always understood it to be what you described:  No votes cast in opposition.

[Edgar Guest]

That's true, it does. 

 

Though only to point out that it makes no difference.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 I was looking for a definition of "unanimous vote", and, as you said, it isn't there....or I couldn't find it. 

346. Ques.

There were fifteen members of an executive board present at a meeting.

One member moved that the salary of a certain officer be increased a certain amount.

The question was put to vote.

The "ayes" had a strong response; nobody voted "no," but three members did not vote "yes."

Can this be called a "unanimous" vote?

Ans. Yes.

All blank ballots are ignored, and the same principle applies to all other forms of voting.

Those not voting are not counted in deciding whether it is a majority, two-thirds, or unanimous vote.

[see Ques. 196, 197.]

[“Parliamentary Law”, 1923, p. 122, Question 346. Bold font added by poster]

 

[Gary Novosielski]

How and by whom was the vote "classed as unanimous"?  Did the secretary describe it that way in the minutes?  Or did someone else describe it that way?

 

As others pointed out, that is not a term used by RONR.  RONR makes no reference at all that I can find about unanimous votes.  Although people may properly describe a vote as unanimous if there are no dissenting votes, it is not a term used in RONR.  If your secretary described the vote that way in the minutes, I would ask that the minutes be corrected to reflect simply that the motion was adopted.  If it was a counted vote, it would be permissible for her to include the actual vote totals in the minutes. 

 

RONR does make repeated references do doing things by "unanimous consent", but that has a precise meaning in RONR and is applied to those situations where something is adopted without objection.  The minutes are usually approved by using unanimous consent.  Usually in those situations, if it seems clear to the chair that all or a vast majority of the members support a motion, especially if it is something uncontroversial, he will say, "Is there any objection to the motion?" and will pause.  If nobody objects, he will then say something like, "hearing no objection, the motion is adopted."   That is what RONR is referring to when it talks about doing things with unanimous consent.  Some members may actually oppose the motion, but if nobody objects, it is deemed adopted by unanimous consent.

 

See pages 54 - 56 in RONR for more on doing things by unanimous consent.

 

Well, RONR does mention unanimous votes in several places, but always in contexts such as things that you can't do even by a unanimous vote.  

 

There is no added authority attached to a motion that passed unanimously as compared to one that squeaked by with a bare majority.  If the motion in question was "classed"  as unanimous in the minutes, I'd call that less than a "best practice," although some organizations by custom, make a note to that effect in the minutes.  

 

If they ask me, I'll recommend that they consider phasing out that practice.  But they probably won't.   (Ask.)

[Timothy]

There is no added authority attached to a motion that passed unanimously as compared to one that squeaked by with a bare majority.  If the motion in question was "classed"  as unanimous in the minutes, I'd call that less than a "best practice," although some organizations by custom, make a note to that effect in the minutes.  

 

If they ask me, I'll recommend that they consider phasing out that practice.  But they probably won't.   (Ask.)

 

Some organizations like to be able to say, "We're in complete harmony on this." While it has no impact on whether something passes or fails, it does help to know whether someone is going to raise a stink about something later (if that sort of thing goes on in the organization).

[Edgar Guest]

Some organizations like to be able to say, "We're in complete harmony on this." 

 

But who's the "we"? Is it all the members (present and absent)? Only the present members? Only the present members who voted?

 

That's the problem. Not that it's of no consequence (which it isn't) but that it can be misinterpreted.

[Timothy]

But who's the "we"? Is it all the members (present and absent)? Only the present members? Only the present members who voted?

 

That's the problem. Not that it's of no consequence (which it isn't) but that it can be misinterpreted.

 

Where I've seen it, it was essentially, unanimous = no expressed opposition.