Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest Dave

Unanimous with one abstention

Recommended Posts

Guest Dave

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Cee Cee

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nikia
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  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...