Voice votes

[Guest Rahway]

A standard practice for our five member board is to conduct voice votes. The president calls for "all those in favor", then calls for "all those opposed", then states the results as "the motion carries" or "the motion fails". On a recent vote, this procedure was followed and there were audible votes in favor, and silence during opposed. The president declared the motion passed and moved to the next agenda item. No board member said or indicated anything different should be noted. Now two board members are stating they abstained from the vote and want the minutes to reflect that. While these abstentions would not change the outcome of the vote as the motion will still pass, it concerns me that they did not verbalize their abstention at the time of the vote. Should we honor their request to record the abstentions?

[Robert B Fish]

That's entirely your decision. They are free to request that the minutes be amended to reflect the fact they abstained from the vote (as long as this does not amount to changing their votes). The board is free to accept or deny their request.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

Should we honor their request to record the abstentions?

Just be careful of establishing a precedent (or what RONR would call a "custom").

[Josh Martin]

While these abstentions would not change the outcome of the vote as the motion will still pass, it concerns me that they did not verbalize their abstention at the time of the vote.

Abstentions shouldn't be verbalized during a voice vote, so I wouldn't concern yourself over that.

Should we honor their request to record the abstentions?

Under the rules of RONR, abstentions are not recorded in the minutes on a voice vote, but the assembly may grant the request if it wishes.

[Gary Novosielski]

A standard practice for our five member board is to conduct voice votes. The president calls for "all those in favor", then calls for "all those opposed", then states the results as "the motion carries" or "the motion fails". On a recent vote, this procedure was followed and there were audible votes in favor, and silence during opposed. The president declared the motion passed and moved to the next agenda item. No board member said or indicated anything different should be noted. Now two board members are stating they abstained from the vote and want the minutes to reflect that. While these abstentions would not change the outcome of the vote as the motion will still pass, it concerns me that they did not verbalize their abstention at the time of the vote. Should we honor their request to record the abstentions?

Abstentions are not votes, and need not be "verbalized". A person who simply does not vote, or who in fact sleeps through a vote, has abstained just as surely as someone who has made a great fuss over abstaining--seeking the dubious honor of being recorded as having no detectable opinion.

Abstentions should not be called for, nor recorded in the minutes. In fact, with respect to voice votes, the minutes do not even record the identity of those who do vote. It would be less than pointless to record the identity of those who do not. Minutes are a record of what was done at the meeting, and since abstaining is literally doing nothing, it can have no effect, and would have a lesser claim to being in the minutes than would the barometric pressure.

As noted, if the assembly wishes, it can vote to record an abstention, or the barometric pressure, in the minutes.

[David A Foulkes]

You know, if these two guys want to go on record that either A.) they had absolutely know opinion on the question whatsoever, or B.) they couldn't even be bothered to vote one way or the other, or C.) despite facing undefeatable support from the "yes" camp, even though they felt strongly against the issue they couldn't even muster the plums to stand and be counted by voting "no", then by all means record their abstentions in the minutes. They want to go on record as saying "Ehhhh, whatever. Pass the cheese doodles'n'dip, Harry", then so be it.

[Dan Honemann]

You know, if these two guys want to go on record that either A.) they had absolutely know opinion on the question whatsoever, or B.) they couldn't even be bothered to vote one way or the other, or C.) despite facing undefeatable support from the "yes" camp, even though they felt strongly against the issue they couldn't even muster the plums to stand and be counted by voting "no", then by all means record their abstentions in the minutes. They want to go on record as saying "Ehhhh, whatever. Pass the cheese doodles'n'dip, Harry", then so be it.

When a board member requests that his abstention be entered in the minutes it is usually because he believes that he has some sort of conflicting interest which makes it improper for him to vote on the matter and he wants the minutes to reflect the fact that he didn't vote. There is ordinarily no reason why such requests should not be granted by unanimous consent, but such a request ought to be made immediately following the vote.

[J. J.]

When a board member requests that his abstention be entered in the minutes it is usually because he believes that he has some sort of conflicting interest which makes it improper for him to vote on the matter and he wants the minutes to reflect the fact that he didn't vote. There is ordinarily no reason why such requests should not be granted by unanimous consent, but such a request ought to be made immediately following the vote.

Or before. I was thinking about a Question of Privilege that the two members' votes be recorded.

[Dan Honemann]

Or before. I was thinking about a Question of Privilege that the two members' votes be recorded.

I do not think that such a request qualifies as a question of privilege (except, perhaps, in a situation in which the law requires that a director's dissent be entered in the minutes in order to counter a presumption of assent to board action).

[Gary Novosielski]

When a board member requests that his abstention be entered in the minutes it is usually because he believes that he has some sort of conflicting interest which makes it improper for him to vote on the matter and he wants the minutes to reflect the fact that he didn't vote. There is ordinarily no reason why such requests should not be granted by unanimous consent, but such a request ought to be made immediately following the vote.

Yes, I've run across that situation, and it can be a valid reason for wanting an abstention recorded. On a board on which I serve, it is a legal requirement imposed by the state ethics commission that certain members may not participate in discussions nor vote on certain motions, for reasons of real or perceived conflict. The issue of requesting entry in the minutes never comes up though, since all substantive motions are done by roll-call vote, also a legal requirement.

But I do recall an instance in executive session where a member did not wish to excuse himself during discussion of a certain topic but asked that the minutes reflect that he did not participate, which was done without objection. It's a rare situation, but it is well that the assembly has the ability to do so when needed.

[Guest Sheri]

If there is an abstention and it is recorded in the minutes, do you need to say why it was done?

[Chris Harrison]

If there is an abstention and it is recorded in the minutes, do you need to say why it was done?

Nothing in RONR requires the minutes reflect the rationale of why something was done (or not done) unless the rationale was included in the text of the motion before the assembly for consideration.

[Rev Ed]

A member is free to abstain - and cannot be asked why, nor does he/she have to specifically declare his/her abstain. By not answering the vote, the member abstains.

A member may ask that the Minutes reflect that he/she abstained, but barring any rule the organization has, the request may be denied.

[Josh Martin]

If there is an abstention and it is recorded in the minutes, do you need to say why it was done?

No, and abstentions should generally not be recorded in the minutes unless the vote was taken by roll call.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If there is an abstention and it is recorded in the minutes,

do you need to say why it was done?

No.

"Why" implies "debate", i.e., a reason pro, or a reason con.

Debate is closed. It was closed before the vote.

No debate is to appear in the minutes.

(Except: where a point of order or an appeal are involved).

[Gary Novosielski]

If there is an abstention and it is recorded in the minutes, do you need to say why it was done?

Not only do you not need to say, you are not allowed to. No debate is permitted during voting. Or, in this case, non-voting.

Why would you be recording an abstention in the minutes in the first place? Was this a roll-call vote? Abstentions are normally dealt with best by not asking for them, not recording them--basically ignoring them completely.

[Guest Julia]

Does someone have to state that they are abstaining?  If they don't verbalize anything during a "yea" or "nay" vote, have they abstained?  Or do they need to state their abstention?

[Richard Brown]

Guest Julia, if a person does not vote, he has abstained.  There is no need to say anything, although in a roll call vote, a member who is abstaining should say "present" or "abstain".  See page 421 re a roll call vote.

,

[Gary Novosielski]

No.  Abstentions need not be vocal.  Simply remaining silent is enough.  And there is no need to record them.  (But a motion to do so would be in order, however ill-advised.)

 

The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To “abstain” means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if “abstentions” are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect.

[edited to remove wrong quote]

[J. J.]

I do not think that such a request qualifies as a question of privilege (except, perhaps, in a situation in which the law requires that a director's dissent be entered in the minutes in order to counter a presumption of assent to board action).

 

 

I would, technically, as it relates to the status of membership.  I would permit it to be of such importance that it may be raised after the Previous Question has been adopted with in regard to the question to be voted upon.  I, however, would not feel that was sufficient importance to interrupt a speaker.

 

That said, I would wonder if there is any practical difference to treating it as a Request for Any Other Privilege. 

[Dan Honemann]

I would, technically, as it relates to the status of membership.  I would permit it to be of such importance that it may be raised after the Previous Question has been adopted with in regard to the question to be voted upon.  I, however, would not feel that was sufficient importance to interrupt a speaker.

 

That said, I would wonder if there is any practical difference to treating it as a Request for Any Other Privilege. 

 

I realize it has taken you well over four years to post this response, but I suggest you need to think about it a bit longer. 

[J. J.]

I realize it has taken you well over four years to post this response, but I suggest you need to think about it a bit longer. 

 

 

i did take four years, but I will stick with the answer.  I am just not too sure how much of a difference it would make.