Guest Dave Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:14 PM At a recent Board meeting we had a vote that was unanimous in the affirmative with the exception of one abstention. How should this vote be recorded in the minutes?1. The motion was approved.2. The motion was unanimously approved.3. The motion was unanimously approved with one abstention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:17 PM Just record that the motion was approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:21 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:21 PM #1 unless your rules say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:25 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 09:25 PM While the vote was unanimous (i.e. no one voted against the motion), a unanimous vote has no parliamentary significance. Further, it can easily be misunderstood to suggest that every member voted in favor of the motion. Clearly, that wasn't the case here. Not only did one member abstain from voting, other members may have been absent. So, as indicated, just record that the motion was adopted. Unless a counted vote was ordered, in which case you'd record the number of "yes" and "no" votes (e.g. 8-0). Or if it was a roll-call vote, in which case you'd record the name of each member and how he/she voted. But there's never any reason to describe the vote as "unanimous". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2014 at 10:02 PM I would state that "The motion was adopted." The only time I can see it being applicable to use the phrase "The motion was unanimously approved" would be if every member - 100% - voted the same way, and even then I would likely only do so if the assembly ordered the use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted November 17, 2014 at 02:23 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 at 02:23 PM Abstentions don't count! The vote was unanimous among those who voted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 17, 2014 at 02:28 PM Report Share Posted November 17, 2014 at 02:28 PM I would state that "The motion was adopted." The only time I can see it being applicable to use the phrase "The motion was unanimously approved" would be if every member - 100% - voted the same way, and even then I would likely only do so if the assembly ordered the use. Well, a unanimous vote is any vote where all the votes cast were the same, regardless of any abstentions or absentees But I agree that the unanimity, or lack thereof, should not be specially noted in the minutes, since it makes no parliamentary difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cee Cee Posted January 21, 2016 at 11:41 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 at 11:41 PM What if the by-laws of an organization require that if the Board votes electronically (i.e., by email), the vote must be "unanimous" but 2 out of 20 Board members abstain? Does this qualify as a unanimous vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 21, 2016 at 11:45 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2016 at 11:45 PM Guest Cee Cee, please post as a new topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nikia Posted May 9, 2019 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 12:23 AM On 1/21/2016 at 3:41 PM, Guest Cee Cee said: What if the by-laws of an organization require that if the Board votes electronically (i.e., by email), the vote must be "unanimous" but 2 out of 20 Board members abstain? Does this qualify as a unanimous vote? Did you ever find the answer to this Cee Cee? I'm currently in the situation you described...email votes require unanimity, but one of my votes abstained (all others voted "yes") so I'm not sure if we've achieved the unanimous requirement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted May 9, 2019 at 12:43 AM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 12:43 AM Please post as a new topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:04 AM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:04 AM Hieu, either the guests have not read the locked thread by Mr. Gerber describing our procedure or they did and did not understand. They do not understand the reason for your request and are intimidated. This type of thing has occurred several times in recent weeks with the poster not returning. Perhaps the software should be updated to automatically lock any inactive thread over say 30 days old. In the meantime, Guest Nikia, abstentions are not counted and 18 yeas with 2 abstentions is a unanimous vote. Next time please start a new thread regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:14 AM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:14 AM "Please post a new topic" is now intimidating? I thought it was rather polite, myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:25 AM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:25 AM I don't think it is intimidating, but I suspect some guests think it is only because they do not know how things are usually done here. We try to tell them but they do not listen very well. Check the case of Cee Cee right here is this thread. Did she ever get the answer she was looking for? It does not seem that way. So, if we locked old threads then this type of thing would no longer take place, Cee Cee would have opened a new thread and the answer would be there, now locked, and guest Nikia would have seen the answer and saved herself the trouble of scratching her head and not understanding what all the fuss is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:48 AM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 01:48 AM In the past, I have expressed my opposition to locking "old" threads, as if topics go beyond the point of further elucidation or reflection with the passage of time. Cee Cee did not fail to receive the help she wanted because anyone "intimidated" her. Rather, she did not receive the help she wanted because she chose not to post a new topic after having been politely asked to do so in order to keep this thread on subject. Mr. Huynh has habituated these forums for quite some while, now. I am certain that he did not intend to intimidate, nor do I find his words intimidating. The same goes for Mr. Gerber's locked post. Everybody, please read Mr. Gerber's guidance before posting. It will save everyone some grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted May 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 12:52 PM Like reelsman, I am also opposed to locking old threads. There are sometimes legitimate reasons for "reviving" or posting in one. When a new member or guest tries to improperly "tack onto" an old thread, I much prefer our system of politely asking the guest to post his question as a new topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Geiger Posted May 9, 2019 at 03:37 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 03:37 PM I don't know if this is possible with the current forum software, but I would like to see a system where, after a thread has been dormant for a given time, only the existing participants in a thread (or an admin) can 'revive' it. It feels like this is a suitable compromise between guests performing thread necromancy and allowing for evolving situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted May 9, 2019 at 03:52 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 03:52 PM 12 minutes ago, Benjamin Geiger said: I don't know if this is possible with the current forum software, but I would like to see a system where, after a thread has been dormant for a given time, only the existing participants in a thread (or an admin) can 'revive' it. It feels like this is a suitable compromise between guests performing thread necromancy and allowing for evolving situations. No, I disagree. There is no need for any sort of "locking down" of old threads. There is not that much of a problem with guests (or members) tacking on new questions to old threads. When it does happen, we just politely ask them to read the rules and to post their question by starting a new thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted May 9, 2019 at 04:38 PM Report Share Posted May 9, 2019 at 04:38 PM I think there's been enough metadiscussion. Any more and I may have to lock the thread.🙂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 10, 2019 at 02:55 AM Report Share Posted May 10, 2019 at 02:55 AM On 5/8/2019 at 9:14 PM, reelsman said: "Please post a new topic" is now intimidating? I thought it was rather polite, myself. Yeah, he said Please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts