Registering dissent

[Guest Dan Saperstein]

Our society's constitution includes a provision which reads, "A dissent is a declaration expressing disagreement with the action or decision of a governing body. A dissent shall be made at the particular session of the governing body during which the action or decision dissented from is taken. The name or names of the members dissenting shall be recorded." Recently, following a vote by ballot, several persons requested of the chair that "their no votes be recorded in the minutes." Some others requested to "register their dissent" with the decision.

I maintain that there is a distinction between the two requests. The constitution permits one to "register a dissent" -- which is a public statement of disagreement with a decision, not to "record a vote." First, it would appear that any member could "register a dissent" -- even if they abstained from voting, or voted with the majority but later changed their mind. Second, by agreeing to vote by ballot, the society agreed to maintain anonymity in the casting of votes. Even a voluntary recording of a secret vote could create pressure for some members to reveal their votes publicly.

Is this distinction meaningful? Is the right to "register a dissent" the same as a right to have a "no" vote recorded? If not, how should the chair deal with such a request?

Thanks in advance for your wisdom.

[Gary c Tesser]

I think yes, there is a difference. The bylaws apparently grant members the right to have their dissents recorded; nothing, especially RONR, gives anyone the right to have their negative votes recorded. And not just incidentally, it's not for the chair to grant any such permission. But isn't the distinction kinda trivial?

Robert's Rules says, "a member who believes that a secret vote will give aq truer expression of the assembly's will on a pending motion can move that the vote on the motion be taken by ballot (p. 274)" Perhaps on the other hand, regarding the motion To Reconsider, we see that "a member who voted by ballot may make the motion [to reconsider] if he is willing to waive the secrecy of his ballot (p. 305)."

And where does this perception of pressure come from?

[Guest Dan Saperstein]

Large numbers of individuals in particular delegations requested that their votes be recorded, with an intent - at least in part - to discover whether individual members of the delegation "toed the line."

I think yes, there is a difference. The bylaws apparently grant members the right to have their dissents recorded; nothing, especially RONR, gives anyone the right to have their negative votes recorded. And not just incidentally, it's not for the chair to grant any such permission. But isn't the distinction kinda trivial?

Robert's Rules says, "a member who believes that a secret vote will give aq truer expression of the assembly's will on a pending motion can move that the vote on the motion be taken by ballot (p. 274)" Perhaps on the other hand, regarding the motion To Reconsider, we see that "a member who voted by ballot may make the motion [to reconsider] if he is willing to waive the secrecy of his ballot (p. 305)."

And where does this perception of pressure come from?

[Gary c Tesser]

Umm, I don't follow. How does my exercising my right to have my dissent recorded affect, in any way, my fellow delegate, Mr Saperstein, who, like me, cast a (secret) ballot -- or even, for that matter, just abstained from voting, as Mr Saperstein mentioned; but who, unlike me, does not choose to record his dissent, assuming he has one, which is not a justified assumption unless Mr Saperstein himself says he wants to?

[Edited for clarity. One perseveres.]

[Edited again to throw in an afterthought.]

[Guest Dan Saperstein]

Assuming that all agents are acting rationally, you are correct, there is no basis to regard this as pressure. However, these are delegations from highly anxious chapters which enforce strong "herding" behavior on their members. Those who differentiate themselves from the herd are punished. I recognize, however, that the pressure to conform (or to lie about one's true position) will be there whether the action is registering a dissent or recording a "no" vote. Either way, the integrity of a secret ballot is compromised. Sigh.

Umm, I don't follow. How does my exercising my right to have my dissent recorded affect, in any way, my fellow delegate, Mr Saperstein, who, like me, cast a (secret) ballot -- or even, for that matter, just abstained from voting, as Mr Saperstein mentioned; but who, unlike me, does not choose to record his dissent, assuming he has one, which is not a justified assumption unless Mr Saperstein himself says he wants to?

[Edited for clarity. One perseveres.]

[Edited again to throw in an afterthought.]

[Gary c Tesser]

I think I see.

Well, to deal with the last initial question: The chair should direct the secretary to record the name of anyone who dissents (because the bylaws say so). But since recording individuals' votes do not belong in the minutes (p. 451 - 454), one who wanted his negative vote recorded would have to request it from the assembly (p. 287 - 288). It occurs to me that the tedious, arguably dilatory process every time might soon make these requests unpopular.

By the way, is there anything that spsecifies that the "declaration expressing disagreement" is just a mnetion of the dissenter's name in the minutes, or does the bylaw provision mean that every dissenter gets to hold forth, in ringing stentorian tones, proclaiming his righteous dudgeon for a few hours? I see nothing in the quoted wording (but please don't quote any more of it) prohibiting such speechifying; a small few of those could turn public opinion around.

One more approaching-dawn thought. The dissent is in opposition to an action or decision made. The decision is made by a majority, which means the dissents are the voice of the minority. How does the minority get to herd the majority around?

[Josh Martin]

Second, by agreeing to vote by ballot, the society agreed to maintain anonymity in the casting of votes. Even a voluntary recording of a secret vote could create pressure for some members to reveal their votes publicly.

Voting by ballot means that members have determined that members have a right to the privacy of their vote. This does not prohibit members from voluntarily revealing their vote. (I am not necessarily suggesting that the votes should or must be recorded, but I do not believe this is a persuasive argument.)

Is this distinction meaningful? Is the right to "register a dissent" the same as a right to have a "no" vote recorded? If not, how should the chair deal with such a request?

It is up to the organization to interpret its own Bylaws. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 570-573 for some Principles of Interpretation.

The decision is made by a majority, which means the dissents are the voice of the minority. How does the minority get to herd the majority around?

Based on the reference to chapters, it is my understanding that the "herding" is taking place in subsets of the full assembly. In other words, the members may be in alignment with the majority position in the full assembly, but are in the minority within their chapter.

[Gary Novosielski]

If your bylaws provide a method to register "dissent" then that's what members have a right to do. What you quoted says nothing about recording their votes.

And, if the vote was actually by ballot, then it is impossible to record how anyone voted in the minutes. Suppose Member A wishes to have his vote recorded. How can anyone know what his vote was? And no, it's not enough for him to "reveal" what his vote was, because there's no way he can prove that he really voted the way he claimed. Without that proof, how can anyone claim to know that the minutes are accurate?

[Josh Martin]

And, if the vote was actually by ballot, then it is impossible to record how anyone voted in the minutes. Suppose Member A wishes to have his vote recorded. How can anyone know what his vote was? And no, it's not enough for him to "reveal" what his vote was, because there's no way he can prove that he really voted the way he claimed. Without that proof, how can anyone claim to know that the minutes are accurate?

It would violate decorum to suggest that Member A is lying about his vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

It would violate decorum to suggest that Member A is lying about his vote.

Saying that there is no proof to support an assertion is not the same as accusing someone of lying. It is merely stating the fact that there exists no proof. And I think before you record in the minutes that someone voted a certain way, you should have some independent indication that it really happened that way.

And since no one but Member A would have any memory of his vote (presuming his own memory is, in fact, accurate), it would be impossible for a majority to meaningfully "approve" that entry in the minutes. They might believe him, but they have no first-hand knowledge on which to base their approval.

Since this is dicey at best, and since the bylaws already give members the right to record dissent, I'd say that's the avenue open to him. The vote was secret. It's not possible to factually record anyone's vote.

[Josh Martin]

Saying that there is no proof to support an assertion is not the same as accusing someone of lying. It is merely stating the fact that there exists no proof.

If Member A requests that he wishes his "no" vote recorded in the minutes, and someone responds that there is no proof, this seems to imply that Member A may not be speaking truthfully (or that he has a very short-term memory, I guess).

And I think before you record in the minutes that someone voted a certain way, you should have some independent indication that it really happened that way.

Why? The record in the minutes has no parliamentary significance, so I see no reason not to take the member at his word. Of course, there's rarely a good reason for an individual vote to be recorded in the minutes anyway, but that's a separate issue.

And since no one but Member A would have any memory of his vote (presuming his own memory is, in fact, accurate), it would be impossible for a majority to meaningfully "approve" that entry in the minutes. They might believe him, but they have no first-hand knowledge on which to base their approval.

Since this is dicey at best, and since the bylaws already give members the right to record dissent, I'd say that's the avenue open to him. The vote was secret. It's not possible to factually record anyone's vote.

If you want to be really technical, I suppose you could record that "Member A stated that he voted no on the motion," but I don't believe the "burden of proof" for information in the minutes is as high as you're making it out to be.

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

It further occurs to me that Gary Novosielski's point about the unverifiability of a (secret) ballot pretty much holds for most other methods of voting, notably excepting a roll-call vote. Whoever could PROVE that he shouted "aye" or "no"? Who can prove which group he stood up with?

Just as with moving a reconsideration after a ballot vote, the member's word must be good enough. The bylaws in this thread provide a really extraneous complication to a matter that has been dealt with here a few times before, the request of a member that his negative (or even sometimes positive) vote be recorded in the minutes. Aside from one or two vehement insistences that the request is unconscionably, intolerably dilatory, most of us, IIRC, considered it at worst an annoyance that's no bid deal, and the non-verifiability of the vote in question a non-issue. (There's a now-legendary Jacobs article on this issue.)

(re. GPN, Post 8: The third sentence in the quoted bylaw provision, in the Original Post, said the dissents are recorded.)

[hmtcastle]

Just as with moving a reconsideration after a ballot vote, the member's word must be good enough.

That's fine but I'm with Mr. Martin's (perhaps half-hearted) suggestion that the minutes record that "Member A stated that he voted no on the motion" and not that Member A voted no on the motion.

[Guest Dan Saperstein]

Thanks to all for your helpful analysis and debate!

Dan Saperstein

That's fine but I'm with Mr. Martin's (perhaps half-hearted) suggestion that the minutes record that "Member A stated that he voted no on the motion" and not that Member A voted no on the motion.

[yogi5990]

How to discipline a member or dissmiss them?

[Gary Novosielski]

How to discipline a member or dissmiss them?

Please ask your unrelated new question as a new topic. (and provide some detail about what you're trying to accomplish)