Voting against a motion

[Guest Ron]

Someone on our committee voted against a motion that eventually passed. He was the only one that voted against it. He then said that he would like his "no" vote identified along with his name and the reason why he voted against it recorded in the minutes. Is this allowed or should it simply be noted that the motion passed? Thanks!

[Edgar Guest]

The minutes should simply record that the motion was adopted but the assembly can accede to his request if it chooses. Just beware of slippery slopes.

[Gary Novosielski]

Someone on our committee voted against a motion that eventually passed. He was the only one that voted against it. He then said that he would like his "no" vote identified along with his name and the reason why he voted against it recorded in the minutes. Is this allowed or should it simply be noted that the motion passed? Thanks!

 

Normally, the only time individual votes are recorded in the minutes is on a roll-call vote.  The member should have moved to hold the vote by roll-call if he wanted his (and everyone else's) vote to be recorded.

 

He can move to have his vote recorded, and if a majority agrees, he gets his way.  Speaking for myself, I would neither second nor vote in favor of such a motion.

[Richard Brown]

There are many situations, usually involving a question of the legality of a motion and possible civil liability, where a member will want his vote noted in the minutes.  I have seen non-profit corporation statutes that seem to provide for non-liability of a director for illegal acts of the corporation if his dissent is noted in the minutes.   It is also done sometimes when a board member or committee member wants his constituency (which might be all of the members of the society) to know how he voted.  It is usually done by unanimous consent, but if any member objects, then a majority vote would be required to make the entry. 

 

This is what General Robert says on page 499 in his book Parliamentary Law in response to a question about having one's vote recorded in the minutes:

 

Ques. 249:  "If a member requests that his vote be recorded in the minuites, is it proper for the chair to state the request and ask if there is any objection?"  

Answer:  "Yes.  If there is no objection the chair directs the secretary to make the entry.  If objection is made, the chair puts the question to a vote."

[George Mervosh]

This is what General Robert says on page 499 in his book Parliamentary Law in response to a question about having one's vote recorded in the minutes:

 

Ques. 249:  "If a member requests that his vote be recorded in the minuites, is it proper for the chair to state the request and ask if there is any objection?"  

Answer:  "Yes.  If there is no objection the chair directs the secretary to make the entry.  If objection is made, the chair puts the question to a vote."

 

I like his old world spelling of minutes. 

[Gary Novosielski]

There are many situations, usually involving a question of the legality of a motion and possible civil liability, where a member will want his vote noted in the minutes.  I have seen non-profit corporation statutes that seem to provide for non-liability of a director for illegal acts of the corporation if his dissent is noted in the minutes.   It is also done sometimes when a board member or committee member wants his constituency (which might be all of the members of the society) to know how he voted.  It is usually done by unanimous consent, but if any member objects, then a majority vote would be required to make the entry. 

 

This is what General Robert says on page 499 in his book Parliamentary Law in response to a question about having one's vote recorded in the minutes:

 

Ques. 249:  "If a member requests that his vote be recorded in the minuites, is it proper for the chair to state the request and ask if there is any objection?"  

Answer:  "Yes.  If there is no objection the chair directs the secretary to make the entry.  If objection is made, the chair puts the question to a vote."

 

Strangely, this seems to bypass the requirement for a second, which might be useful to weed out requests from people who seem obsessed with having their opinions enshrined for future archæologists to discover.

[Edgar Guest]

Strangely, this seems to bypass the requirement for a second, which might be useful to weed out requests from people who seem obsessed with having their opinions enshrined for future archæologists to discover.

Well, the chair is simply asking for unanimous consent though I'd rather it be treated like the unreasonable request that it (usually) is. And, in this instance, the member is not only requesting that his sole dissenting vote be recorded, he wants the record to show why he voted "no".

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, the chair is simply asking for unanimous consent though I'd rather it be treated like the unreasonable request that it (usually) is. And, in this instance, the member is not only requesting that his sole dissenting vote be recorded, he wants the record to show why he voted "no".

 

The time to explain why he opposed the motion was during debate.  Since debate doesn't appear in the minutes, neither should his reason.

 

(But again, it's possible if a majority agrees to this even more unreasonable request.)

[Guest Ron]

Thanks to all for your thoughts. This was a great help and in line with what I was thinking.