abstaining by remaining silent?

[Guest GrayBeard]

At a meeting of a public body, a member of the governing board, call him John Doe, asks that a correction be made to the minutes of the previous meeting. The requested correction involved a vote on an item at the previous meeting, on which the chair called for all those in favor to say aye. Those so inclined did say aye. When the chair called for all those opposed to say nay, no one said anything. The outcome of the vote was recorded as unanimous approval. The requested correction was to have the minutes reflect that John Doe abstained from the vote – because he contends that he did not say aye. Members of the board at the meeting when the correction is requested do not delve into the factual question of whether John Doe said aye. 

 

Question: Can the body properly amend the minutes to reflect abstention by John Doe? Does it matter if John Doe in good faith believed that he could effectuate an abstention by remaining silent? 

 

 

[Chris Harrison]

Can the body properly amend the minutes to reflect abstention by John Doe?

Yes though they probably should reject any correction specifying that he abstained unless he can provide a good reason for adopting it.

 

Does it matter if John Doe in good faith believed that he could effectuate an abstention by remaining silent?

His faith is good since any member who was there when the vote was taken and didn't vote did in fact abstain.  There is no reason to ask for abstentions in the first place or include in the minutes the names of those who did abstain (with one exception which doesn't appear to fit your situation).

[Bruce Lages]

What should be corrected in the minutes is the statement that the outcome of the vote was unanimous approval, since this seems to have created a false impression that every member of the body present voted aye. Since this was a voice vote it is even possible that Mr. Doe was not the only member who abstained. It would be more accurate to have the minutes state simply that the motion being voted on was approved.

[Sean Hunt]

(with one exception which doesn't appear to fit your situation).

What might that be? I can't think of any such exception.

[Thomas Ralph]

What should be corrected in the minutes is the statement that the outcome of the vote was unanimous approval, since this seems to have created a false impression that every member of the body present voted aye. Since this was a voice vote it is even possible that Mr. Doe was not the only member who abstained. It would be more accurate to have the minutes state simply that the motion being voted on was approved.

A vote is unanimous if all those voting vote the same way.

A vote of N ayes, zero noes, and X abstentions is unanimous (assuming N is at least 1).

Whilst I agree that the correction should not have been made, the reason is that there is not usually a relevance in having unanimity mentioned in the minutes. The vote was unanimous.

[Chris Harrison]

What might that be? I can't think of any such exception.

 

RONR p. 422 says:

In roll-call voting, a record of how each member voted, as well as the result of the vote, should be entered in full in the journal or minutes. If those responding to the roll call do not total a sufficient number to constitute a quorum, the chair must direct the secretary to enter the names of enough members who are present but not voting to reflect the attendance of a quorum during the vote.

 

 

 

[Guest Edgar]

A vote is unanimous if all those voting vote the same way.

A vote of N ayes, zero noes, and X abstentions is unanimous (assuming N is at least 1).

Whilst I agree that the correction should not have been made, the reason is that there is not usually a relevance in having unanimity mentioned in the minutes. The vote was unanimous.

 

Yes, but as Mr. Lages observed, characterizing a vote as "unanimous" (which is unnecessary even if accurate) can lead to the misapprehension that every member present supported it.

[Gary Novosielski]

At a meeting of a public body, a member of the governing board, call him John Doe, asks that a correction be made to the minutes of the previous meeting. The requested correction involved a vote on an item at the previous meeting, on which the chair called for all those in favor to say aye. Those so inclined did say aye. When the chair called for all those opposed to say nay, no one said anything. The outcome of the vote was recorded as unanimous approval. The requested correction was to have the minutes reflect that John Doe abstained from the vote – because he contends that he did not say aye. Members of the board at the meeting when the correction is requested do not delve into the factual question of whether John Doe said aye. 

 

Question: Can the body properly amend the minutes to reflect abstention by John Doe? Does it matter if John Doe in good faith believed that he could effectuate an abstention by remaining silent?

 

No. Abstentions should be neither called for nor recorded, according to the rules in RONR.

 

And besides, the vote actually was unanimous, because there was no opposition.  Even so, there is no reason to record that fact in the first place.  Just record that the motion was adopted.

__________

Edited to add:

In roll-call voting, a record of how each member voted, as well as the result of the vote, should be entered in full in the journal or minutes. If those responding to the roll call do not total a sufficient number to constitute a quorum, the chair must direct the secretary to enter the names of enough members who are present but not voting to reflect the attendance of a quorum during the vote.

So here's a question: Would it be improper, in this particular situation, for the chair to direct the secretary to enter ALL the names of members present but not voting, on the grounds that there is no reason to select some names over others?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, the vote was unanimous but we are told that it was recorded as "unanimous approval", which I think is a bit more misleading than simply recording that the vote was unanimous.

[Josh Martin]

So here's a question: Would it be improper, in this particular situation, for the chair to direct the secretary to enter ALL the names of members present but not voting, on the grounds that there is no reason to select some names over others?

 

No, I don't think it would be proper for the chair to direct the Secretary to do so, but the assembly could order that if it wished. I'd probably just have the Secretary go down the roll and stop when he has enough members to show the presence of a quorum.

[angelofdadesert]

Yes, it should be noted in the minutes that John Doe abstained and should be amended for future reference. It is important especially if it is a topic that will have an impact on what you believe in and stand up for regarding your position at any organization.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, it should be noted in the minutes that John Doe abstained and should be amended for future reference. It is important especially if it is a topic that will have an impact on what you believe in and stand up for regarding your position at any organization.

 

I suppose this is your personal opinion on the subject? As noted, while the assembly certainly can amend the minutes to note that John Doe abstained, the idea that this should be noted is not supported by anything in RONR (although it is certainly possible that the board's rules or applicable law provide otherwise).

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, it should be noted in the minutes that John Doe abstained and should be amended for future reference. It is important especially if it is a topic that will have an impact on what you believe in and stand up for regarding your position at any organization^{.[citation needed]}

 

Umm, no.