Guest Donna Posted May 23, 2011 at 04:49 PM Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 at 04:49 PM During a recent Board meeting a member voted against a motion and asked that the minutes reflect how he voted. Is this appropriate? Should the minutes reflect the names of those dissenting or abstaining from voting or should the minutes reflect the outcome (i.e., motion passed or motion failed)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted May 23, 2011 at 04:52 PM Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 at 04:52 PM Should the minutes reflect the names of those dissenting or abstaining from voting or should the minutes reflect the outcome (i.e., motion passed or motion failed)?In most cases all that's recorded is the disposition of the motion (e.g. adopted or lost). In some cases the vote count is recorded (e.g. 5-4). In rare cases (i.e. a roll-call vote) how each member voted is recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 23, 2011 at 07:34 PM Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 at 07:34 PM During a recent Board meeting a member voted against a motion and asked that the minutes reflect how he voted. Is this appropriate? Should the minutes reflect the names of those dissenting or abstaining from voting or should the minutes reflect the outcome (i.e., motion passed or motion failed)?There is nothing inappropriate about such a request, which is normally granted by unanimous consent. If any member objects, however, a majority vote (without debate) is required to grant the request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted May 23, 2011 at 09:49 PM Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 at 09:49 PM Normally there would be no reason to refuse the request, however the members could vote against allowing the request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM Report Share Posted May 23, 2011 at 10:37 PM Normally there would be no reason to refuse the request, however the members could vote against allowing the request.Well, I think if I were a member I'd likely object to it. In my view, if a someone wants the votes recorded, the way to do that is a motion for a roll-call vote. The minutes ought to be a record of the society, not a personal journal for individual members who want their own votes, but presumably nobody else's, immortalized in the minutes. Or worse yet, their individual abstentions: "I request that my complete inaction be recorded, because presumably I'm so proud of it"? Nope, doesn't work for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 24, 2011 at 04:47 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 04:47 PM There is nothing inappropriate about such a request, which is normally granted by unanimous consent. If any member objects, however, a majority vote (without debate) is required to grant the request.Did your citation of RONR get truncated accidentally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 24, 2011 at 05:03 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 05:03 PM Did your citation of RONR get truncated accidentally? I would cite pp. 280-81, and p. 287-88. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 24, 2011 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 05:34 PM I would cite pp. 280-81, and p. 287-88. I would, too, except that the general norm for interpreting rules, RONR (10th ed.), p. 570, ll. 11-14; p. 571, ll. 24-35, is that the specific authorization of certain things of a class implies that other things of the same class are excluded. RONR specifically lists the things that are, or might be ordered to be, included in the minutes on pp. 451-454. The clear implication is that other things are thereby excluded, since there is not to be found there an "other things, as necessary" clause similar in nature to what is found in p. 569, ll. 20-24. The rules on pp. 451-454, are rules of order under the definition of p. 15, ll. 3-7, since they pertain to the duties of the secretary in the context of the transaction of business in a meeting. As such, the suspension of the rules to enter on the minutes other things than those listed on pp. 451-454, requires a two-thirds vote. It is not correct, in my opinion, to sometimes apply the norms for interpreting rules when they are convenient, but sometimes not apply them when they are not convenient.(edited to correct page numbers) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 24, 2011 at 07:42 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 07:42 PM Normally there would be no reason to refuse the request, however the members could vote against allowing the request.Actually, I think there would normally be no reason to grant the request. While there are certainly reasons such a request would be appropriate (often due to rules outside of RONR), they are not that common in the average deliberative assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 24, 2011 at 08:35 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 08:35 PM Actually, I think there would normally be no reason to grant the request. While there are certainly reasons such a request would be appropriate (often due to rules outside of RONR), they are not that common in the average deliberative assembly.This may or may not be the case, but it certainly does not mean that such a request is dilatory, or out of order for any other reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 24, 2011 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 08:46 PM I would, too, except that the general norm for interpreting rules, RONR (10th ed.), p. 570, ll. 11-14; p. 571, ll. 24-35, is that the specific authorization of certain things of a class implies that other things of the same class are excluded. RONR specifically lists the things that are, or might be ordered to be, included in the minutes on pp. 280, 281. The clear implication is that other things are thereby excluded, since there is not to be found there an "other things, as necessary" clause similar in nature to what is found in p. 569, ll. 20-24. The rules on pp. 280, 281, are rules of order under the definition of p. 15, ll. 3-7, since they pertain to the duties of the secretary in the context of the transaction of business in a meeting. As such, the suspension of the rules to enter on the minutes other things than those listed on pp. 280, 281, requires a two-thirds vote. It is not correct, in my opinion, to sometimes apply the norms for interpreting rules when they are convenient, but sometimes not apply them when they are not convenient.Actually, you have that backward. RONR requires certain things to be placed in the minutes (p. 451 ff.), but that represents a minimum requirement, but not a maximum limitation. The rules of interpretation would "...permit things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and are evidently not improper. (p. 572)" Like many rules in RONR, what is required to be in the minutes is the minimum requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 24, 2011 at 09:27 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 09:27 PM This may or may not be the case, but it certainly does not mean that such a request is dilatory, or out of order for any other reason.Oh, I completely agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted May 24, 2011 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 at 11:22 PM [snip] ... pp. 280, 281.... [snip]Rob, what book are you looking in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 25, 2011 at 10:37 PM Report Share Posted May 25, 2011 at 10:37 PM Rob, what book are you looking in?Thank you, Gary. I have edited my reply to correct the page numbers. I appreciate your calling attention to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.