Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

Having gained some familiarity with RRONR and as a relatively new member of our non-profit, 30 member board, I was surprised that our minutes seem to always include vote counts and they name each of the minority voters (and those abstaining).

This is true even for votes that are nearly unanimous (ex. "The vote was taken: yes‐19; and no‐1 (Negative Na Bob), abstain-1 (NaBob Two).") It seems to me that what is presented in RRONR about not counting vocal votes, standing votes, hand votes, etc makes a lot of sense, helping to preserve unity or at least the appearance of unity and posting the minority names seems almost punitive, if not bullying.

When I brought this up to the president, he just brushed it off as nit picking (my term). So, am I just going over the edge? It sure seems like its in RRONR for a reason.

thanks,

a Student Parliamentarian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Nitpicking" is, in my view at least, unobjectionable, and in this instance, an apt term. Not that I endorse the president's view, but that the word does say what he meant. Unless in Student Parliamentarian's part of the country, "nit picking" means something vastly different from what I take it to mean. But my dictionary, the 4th Edition of the AHD, which I picked up at a usuriously low price from a scandalous used-dictionary salesmen, was published in Boston and/or New York, and you know about them Yankees.

Of course you're right. But until you get a bunch of other members on your side, you got a Sisyphean uphill slog. You might start recruiting with the members whose names get posted in the minutes implicitly as obstructive traitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do I write southern?

It's not something that I have detected.

I am from the south,

I'm glad to hear it.

but I am, at this second, in New York

Oh, I'm sorry about that.

As for the parliamentary situation, when the next minutes are up for approval, I would offer a correction to strike all references to how members voted, citing RONR (11th ed.), p. 470, ll. 29-33.

More importantly, when the next vote is taken, I would raise a point of order if it is conducted as a roll-call vote or in some fashion inconsistent with the rules, citing RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, l. 27 - p. 47, l. 24, as applicable. Also, throw in page 420.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the advice, I'll soon have a change to give it a try.

No matter how pleasant it has been this short time in Poughkeepsie, its now time to _leave_ and finally have my RRONR back!

thanks,

aStudentParliamentarian

When you reunite with your book, take a look at page vii.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank all for the suffering, its been a most pleasant introduction to the forum!

Unfortunately, RONR (11th ed.), p. 470, ll. 29-33 only indicate that names should be listed if the vote was by roll call, it is silent about the negative (i.e. about recording names with all other voting methods).

RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, l. 27 - p. 47, l. 24 says only "The simple rising vote (in which the number of members voting on each side is not counted)", not to the recording of names, though that might be implied by 'not counting'.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 420 only speaks to Roll Call votes.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 411, 19 - 21 says that "If written records are prepared in counting the vote ... they are subject to the same retention and recount rules as ballots."

RONR (11th ed.), p. 409, 26-36 does not mention counting or recording.

Interesting,

aSP.

P.S. Ok, so in references "RONR (11th ed.), II. p. 411, 19 - 2" I am not sure what the 'I.' or 'II.' represent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to thank all for the suffering, its been a most pleasant introduction to the forum!

Unfortunately, RONR (11th ed.), p. 470, ll. 29-33 only indicate that names should be listed if the vote was by roll call, it is silent about the negative (i.e. about recording names with all other voting methods).

RONR (11th ed.), p. 45, l. 27 - p. 47, l. 24 says only "The simple rising vote (in which the number of members voting on each side is not counted)", not to the recording of names, though that might be implied by 'not counting'.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 420 only speaks to Roll Call votes.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 411, 19 - 21 says that "If written records are prepared in counting the vote ... they are subject to the same retention and recount rules as ballots."

RONR (11th ed.), p. 409, 26-36 does not mention counting or recording.

Interesting,

aSP.

P.S. Ok, so in references "RONR (11th ed.), II. p. 411, 19 - 2" I am not sure what the 'I.' or 'II.' represent.

"l." stands for "line" and "ll." stands for "lines". See page viii (the page before page ix).

What do you mean by "Unfortunately ..."? RONR says when names or tallies are included in the minutes; therefore, in all other cases they are not included.

By the way, I can't find any reference in RONR that the room temperature at the time of each vote should not be recorded in the minutes. So does your president therefore think it should be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I." and "II." ... of course, its a typeface problem, I could only see as roman numerals.

From what I can tell, if the president decided to include temperature, there is nothing to say he cannot. So if he decided to include the count, there is nothing that says he cannot. I understand the "normal" interpretation and I feel that listing the minority could be considered divisive, but perhaps it can be seen as a short-cut way to make sure the membership understands who is voting for what.

aSP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to thank all for the suffering, its been a most pleasant introduction to the forum!

Unfortunately, RONR (11th ed.), p. 470, ll. 29-33 only indicate that names should be listed if the vote was by roll call, it is silent about the negative (i.e. about recording names with all other voting methods).

Exactly. With the regular methods of voting, the names are not entered in the minutes. Those pages are detailing what goes in the minutes, and you will see that what you're describing in your minutes is not listed on those pages.

P.S. Ok, so in references "RONR (11th ed.), II. p. 411, 19 - 2" I am not sure what the 'I.' or 'II.' represent.

l = line

ll = lines

p = page

pp = pages

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I." and "II." ... of course, its a typeface problem, I could only see as roman numerals.

From what I can tell, if the president decided to include temperature, there is nothing to say he cannot. So if he decided to include the count, there is nothing that says he cannot. I understand the "normal" interpretation and I feel that listing the minority could be considered divisive, but perhaps it can be seen as a short-cut way to make sure the membership understands who is voting for what.

aSP.

Your position is to advise the President what RONR says....not what you feel or improper short-cuts (that sounds harshly put on the internet, it's not meant to be).

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I can tell, if the president decided to include temperature, there is nothing to say he cannot. So if he decided to include the count, there is nothing that says he cannot.

Except that no one member (no, not even the president) decides what ends up in the approved minutes and the temperature won't even get into the draft if the secretary doesn't want it there.

I've often thought there should be a small sign in front of the president reminding him that "You're Only the President",

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...