Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Voting and the Minutes


Mike Arnold

Recommended Posts

My apologies, I meant to take 'feel' out of that posting! :-) dang it.

In this case, RONR does seem more prescriptive than proscriptive. For example, RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, l. 14 says "The chair should not call for abstentions...", when stating that our current practice of counting and enumerating the minority & abstentions does not conform to RONR, it would be easier if RONR made a similar statement about counting.

It does say in RONR (11th ed.), p. 47, ll. 4-5 "If a rising vote remains inconclusive, the chair or the assembly can order the vote to be counted", this is echoed in RONR (11th ed.), p. 52, ll. 32-33, and RONR (11th ed.), p. 410, ll. 15-18, though p. 410, ll. 21-22 "If the chair does not obtain a count at his own instance" is an interesting use of the word 'instance'.

So, I think these references are sufficient. Might it be expedient to forward to the secretary my intent to offer the correction and to remind them that counts are not a part of viva voce, rising or show of hand votes unless a majority cannot be ascertained?

I did mention this to the president and he says he is using Unanimous Consent if he thinks that will work, otherwise he says he goes straight to a roll call vote if he thinks it will be close. Of course, I have been there and though there was one role call vote, it surely wasn't needed since it passed 19-1, the other votes were not roll call, but still counted and the minority named ... on the first vote.

I am decidedly _NOT_ the president,

aSP.

P.S. Harshness is easy, no offense taken. It would have been better if I read 'l.' as lowercase-L rather than uppercase-i :-(call it a programmer mistake :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

. . . Might it be expedient to forward to the secretary my intent to offer the correction and to remind them that counts are not a part of viva voce, rising or show of hand votes unless a majority cannot be ascertained?

I did mention this to the president and he says he is using Unanimous Consent if he thinks that will work, otherwise he says he goes straight to a roll call vote if he thinks it will be close. Of course, I have been there and though there was one role call vote, it surely wasn't needed since it passed 19-1, the other votes were not roll call, but still counted and the minority named ... on the first vote.

I am decidedly _NOT_ the president,

aSP.

If the chair takes a count of the vote and announces the count as part of the result, then the count should be included in the minutes, regardless of whether a count was actually necessary. The minutes are supposed to reflect what actually happened, even if there was no good reason for it to happen. However, I don't think that announcing who voted against the motion, other than in a roll-call vote, is of any parliamentary significance,* and it should not be recorded in the minutes.

*Notwithstanding the rules regarding who will be eligible to make a motion to Reconsider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . though p. 410, ll. 21-22 "If the chair does not obtain a count at his own instance" is an interesting use of the word 'instance'.

Indeed it is and, had it not also appeared in the 10th edition, and had not the Authorship Team a well-deserved reputation for accuracy, I'd have almost thought "insistence" was what was intended.

DATt9Q

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the chair takes a count of the vote and announces the count as part of the result, then the count should be included in the minutes, regardless of whether a count was actually necessary. The minutes are supposed to reflect what actually happened, even if there was no good reason for it to happen.

So, its the president's intent to continue to count and from this, that can be done at the president's discretion. This was my original point, there is nothing to prohibit it.

and it should not be recorded in the minutes.

Since the secretary recorded the count, per RONR (11th ed.), p. 411, ll. 19 - 21, they too must be included in the minutes. (it _is_ being record in the minutes)

Note that in my circles, this is now officially considered a loop.

shew,

aSP.

P.S. Is there a Parliamentarian Hot-Line? (only kinda kidding)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed it is and, had it not also appeared in the 10th edition, and had not the Authorship Team a well-deserved reputation for accuracy, I'd have almost thought "insistence" was what was intended.

DATt9Q

It seems that there are 34 instances of the word instance in RONR, three of them being of the instant kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, its the president's intent to continue to count and from this, that can be done at the president's discretion. This was my original point, there is nothing to prohibit it.

Since the secretary recorded the count, per RONR (11th ed.), p. 411, ll. 19 - 21, they too must be included in the minutes. (it _is_ being record in the minutes)

Note that in my circles, this is now officially considered a loop.

shew,

aSP.

P.S. Is there a Parliamentarian Hot-Line? (only kinda kidding)

I'm afraid you've totally lost me on this. There is obviously nothing to prohibit the president's counting of a vote, because it is his duty to count the vote when in doubt. It is also obvious that the president is either ignorant or is wasting everyone's time if he thinks that anything in RONR recommends counting the vote when the vote is so lopsided.

And p. 411, ll. 19 - 21 has nothing to do with the content of the minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you've totally lost me on this. There is obviously nothing to prohibit the president's counting of a vote, because it is his duty to count the vote when in doubt. It is also obvious that the president is either ignorant or is wasting everyone's time if he thinks that anything in RONR recommends counting the vote when the vote is so lopsided.

And p. 411, ll. 19 - 21 has nothing to do with the content of the minutes.

Since I 'felt' the counting and naming of the minority was both time-wasting and potentially divisive and my personal interpretation of RONR suggested that such a practice was not normative, I asked this forum if there were rules prohibiting such counting. As you have stated there is nothing to prohibit the counting or the naming. So, from what you have said, I have no standing on those issues. Others in this thread have indicated that I do have some ground to stand on.

I might suggest that ignorant the president is not, determined he is. (always time for a little Yoda)

My apologies for being such a dunderhead (a technical term) on this issue,

aSP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you have stated there is nothing to prohibit the counting or the naming. So, from what you have said, I have no standing on those issues. Others in this thread have indicated that I do have some ground to stand on.

I might suggest that ignorant the president is not, determined he is. (always time for a little Yoda)

I don't recall stating there is nothing to prohibit the naming. As I said before, "RONR says when names or tallies are included in the minutes; therefore, in all other cases they are not included."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid you've totally lost me on this. There is obviously nothing to prohibit the president's counting of a vote, because it is his duty to count the vote when in doubt. It is also obvious that the president is either ignorant or is wasting everyone's time if he thinks that anything in RONR recommends counting the vote when the vote is so lopsided.

And p. 411, ll. 19 - 21 has nothing to do with the content of the minutes.

When the president is not in doubt as to which side has it, and members feel he is wasting everyone's time, do they have grounds for a point of order, or other recourse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the president is not in doubt as to which side has it, and members feel he is wasting everyone's time, do they have grounds for a point of order, or other recourse?

I would say that a member could raise a Point of Order that the vote was sufficiently lopsided that there is no doubt as to the result and thus ordering a count is dilatory. Of course, the President is likely to rule the Point Not Well Taken which could be Appealed (which I believe would be debatable) and it might take more time dealing with all of that then doing the count (and the President might order the vote on the Appeal counted :o ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm encouraged that the original poster is learning how to apply RONR and become a parliamentarian. Welcome to our little part of the meeting world.

I think we all agree that the inclusion of how board members vote -- without an order or rule requiring the vote to be taken by roll call -- is not a practice required by RONR.

I am a member of an organization whose board also lists the directors who did not vote on the prevailing side in the minutes. This organization is also a corporation. You stated in post #1 that this is a "non-profit, 30 member board." Is your board part of a corporation? There are some interesting provisions in some corporation laws that differ from RONR and may be reasons why things are done the way they are.

It's a good idea to know all of the procedural rules your board is subject to, including those that may be in any applicable laws. (See RONR, 11th ed., p. 3, l. 32 through p. 4, l. 2.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that a member could raise a Point of Order that the vote was sufficiently lopsided that there is no doubt as to the result and thus ordering a count is dilatory. Of course, the President is likely to rule the Point Not Well Taken which could be Appealed (which I believe would be debatable) and it might take more time dealing with all of that then doing the count (and the President might order the vote on the Appeal counted :o ).

Chris, I myself wouldn't be surprised if it took longer, and if it had to be done more than once, each; time still taking longer than if we gave up and let him put the names of dissenters in the minutes. Teaching is like that sometimes.

5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since RONR may very well be overruled by statute in the area of vote counting, I will remain silent on this issue (and really all other RONR issues, if I can) until I can become knowledgable about all of the applicable laws. This is surely not as simple as reading a well-contained document like RONR, and not being a lawyer, will take me into that other world!

I also see my difficulty in understanding in RONR when 'if its not listed its not prohibited' vs 'if its not listed its not allowed' is going to be problematic.

Thank y'all for your help.

still thinking of just changing my id to,

aMajorityVoter.

P.S. 'Instance' - I did look at MW and the definition is certainly there, but to me, still a forced use. Its not listed as 'archaic', perhaps I'll suggest they label it 'oddball' :-) I may have more luck there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since RONR may very well be overruled by statute in the area of vote counting, I will remain silent on this issue (and really all other RONR issues, if I can) until I can become knowledgable about all of the applicable laws. This is surely not as simple as reading a well-contained document like RONR, and not being a lawyer, will take me into that other world!

Well, are the names being included for no reason at all, hence the "nit picking" reply from the president, or are they being included by reason of some rule outside RONR? Or is the board on auto-pilot, with no one knowing why anyone does anything?

I also see my difficulty in understanding in RONR when 'if its not listed its not prohibited' vs 'if its not listed its not allowed' is going to be problematic.

Don't think of it in terms of "not prohibited" as opposed to "not allowed". Think more in terms of a prescribed format which should not be deviated from except for good reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, are the names being included for no reason at all, hence the "nit picking" reply from the president, or are they being included by reason of some rule outside RONR? Or is the board on auto-pilot, with no one knowing why anyone does anything?

From what I can tell, it is the preference of the president, thinking he is providing a service. The prescribed format does not prohibit such a preference, so there is no compelling reason to change.

Don't think of it in terms of "not prohibited" as opposed to "not allowed". Think more in terms of a prescribed format which should not be deviated from except for good reason.

Now for me this gets us to a logic issue, at least when one attempts to correct that which deviates from the prescribed format, there are various issues which are prohibited, but there are many more which are not. I have not found (nor have I looked too hard) for the statement that indicated the prescribed format "should not be deviated from except for good reason," and even if that statement exists, I am sure that the president's personal preference would be considered a sufficient reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure that the president's personal preference would be considered a sufficient reason.

Once again, the president's personal preferences carry no more weight than the personal preferences of any other member. So if a majority of your members want crappy non-standard minutes they're welcome to have them. It's not an issue that will be resolved by RONR . . . or this forum.

K2Df8N

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, it is the preference of the president, thinking he is providing a service. The prescribed format does not prohibit such a preference, so there is no compelling reason to change.

The spoons go in the kitchen drawer. The coats hang in the hall closet. The shampoo goes in the bathroom. The week of Halloween, the skeleton hangs on the front door. When the vote is by roll call, the names of those voting go in the minutes.

I can't think of a compelling reason to take the skeleton down for the other 51 weeks of the year . . . so keep putting the names in the minutes.

I have to ask the neighbors for candy, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...