Immediate Objection to Unanimous Consent and Meeting Minutes

[nicholasforbes]

I am curious how the below situation should appropriately be handled in meeting minutes:

 

At a recent meeting run under RONR a motion was made, there was discussion, an amendment was proposed and there was discussion about whether or not to accept the amendment when the Chair declared that there being no objections the main motion as amended was adopted.  There was an objection within less than one-second by one member to the use of unanimous consent as well as a call for the vote by another member.  The Chair overruled the objections and declared the motion adopted. How is this handled in the meeting minutes and are there any other considerations to be aware of?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"The motion was adopted."

 

See RONR 11th ed., pp. 54-56 for the proper handling of unanimous consent.

 

It may also be useful to read on Point of Order (starting on p. 247) and Appeal (starting on p. 255).

[Guest Curious]

What a tyrant! Anyway, you can't put that in the minutes.  Since there was no point of order or appeal, all you can write is that the motion was adopted as amended.

[nicholasforbes]

I should add I already have this particular information:  

 

RONR (11^th ed.), pp. 54-55, ll. 29-36, ll.1-4 states “If any member objects, the chair must state the question on the motion, allow any desired debate… and put the question in the regular manner…”. 

 “If an objection is made with reasonable promptness, even though the chair may have already announced the results as one of “no objection,” he must disregard such an announcement…”

 

RONR (11^th Ed.), p. 55,  ll.5-14 states “Unanimous consent” does not necessarily imply that every member present is in favor of the proposed action; it may only mean that the opposition, feeling that it is useless to oppose or discuss the matter, simply acquiesces.  Similarly, when a member responses to the chair’s inquiry, “Is there any object…?” with “I object,” he may not necessarily oppose the motion itself, but may believe that it is wise to take a formal vote under the circumstances.  In other words, the objection is raised, not to the proposed action, but to the action’s being taken without a formal vote.”

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The minutes are a record of what was done at the meeting, even if it was improper.

 

Perhaps another useful section to read is "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting" starting on p. 650.

[George Mervosh]

Are you and Mr. Meltz members of the same group?   http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/26456-unanimous-consent-parts-1-and-2/     It is good you started your own thread though.

[nicholasforbes]

Interesting thread.  However, I'm just curious how to report the above situation in the meeting minutes.

[George Mervosh]

Interesting thread.  However, I'm just curious how to report the above situation in the meeting minutes.

 

Just report what happened, even if what happened was not proper.  You can't rewrite history.  (As Mr. Huynh already noted)

[nicholasforbes]

Thanks, is it reported as "Motion Adopted by Unanimous Consent", "Motion Adopted", "Motion Adopted over Objection"?  Any wording help would be greatly appreciated so that the RS can just report it and we can move on.  Thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

Motion adopted as amended.

 

Now, the question of what SHOULD have been done when the objection was ignored, and the Point of Order (there was a point of order, right?) was ruled not well-taken.

 

A member (any member) should then have moved to Appeal From the Decision of the Chair.  The chair's decision was incorrect because it is improper to assume unanimous consent in the face of an objection from even a single member.  It also is not clear that the amendment had actually been agreed to, which is another potential violation.  An Appeal requires a second, is debatable under abbreviated rules, and requires a majority vote in the negative (i.e., to overrule the chair).

 

But as none of that apparently took place, the tyrannical decision of the chair stands.  Your rights cannot stand up for themselves.

 

It probably is not too late to adopt a motion to censure (reprimand) the presiding officer for this behavior in an effort to dissuade him from acting like that in the future.  But the membership should also be more familiar with the motion to Appeal in the future as well.

[nicholasforbes]

Thank you all.  Your help is greatly appreciated.

[Josh Martin]

It probably is not too late to adopt a motion to censure (reprimand) the presiding officer for this behavior in an effort to dissuade him from acting like that in the future.

It's not, but I think that's letting the chair off too easy. Declaring a motion adopted by unanimous consent when it is plainly obvious that there is not unanimous consent is absolutely unacceptable behavior for a presiding officer and, in my opinion, should result in his prompt removal from the position. See FAQ #20.

[Larry Cisar]

'The moiton was declared adopted by unanimous consent but objections were heard.' That is what I think the minutes should say based on what was reported by the secretary. Declaring less is allowing the minutes to abuse the rights of members to a fair meeting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I am curious how the below situation should appropriately be handled in meeting minutes:

 

At a recent meeting run under RONR a motion was made, there was discussion, an amendment was proposed and there was discussion about whether or not to accept the amendment when the Chair declared that there being no objections the main motion as amended was adopted.  There was an objection within less than one-second by one member to the use of unanimous consent as well as a call for the vote by another member.  The Chair overruled the objections and declared the motion adopted. How is this handled in the meeting minutes and are there any other considerations to be aware of?

 

 

'The moiton was declared adopted by unanimous consent but objections were heard.' That is what I think the minutes should say based on what was reported by the secretary. Declaring less is allowing the minutes to abuse the rights of members to a fair meeting.

 

I agree with this to some extent, but it does not go far enough in making clear what happened. Who declared the motion adopted, and who heard the objections?

 

Although there should not be a play-by-play account of every procedural action taken at a meeting, if the chair "overruled the objections" it seems to me that something of significance has happened that should be recorded in the minutes. What that something was, I have no idea.