Recording a dissenting vote

[Guest allison]

I am trying to determine whether -- and under what circumstances -- a committe member who dissents in voting on a particular question is entitled to have her dissent recorded in the minutes.  I have reviewed a number of forum threads addressing the subject.  Most seem to conclude that the member is not entitled to have her dissent recorded in the minutes, unless the majority authorizes recording the dissent.   Rule 60, however, entitled "The Minutes," states that, "when the voting is by yeas and nays [the secretary] should enter a list of the names of those voting on each side."    This language would seem to require the secretary to record a dissenting vote in the minutes whenever the vote is by yea or nay.  I would appreciate any guidance experts might have.  Thank you. 

[Dan Honemann]

The voting by yeas and nays referred to in that 100 year old edition in which you found Sec 60 is what is referred to as a roll-call vote in the current (11th, 2011) edition, and yes, when a roll-call vote is taken, the names of all members voting and how they voted is recorded in the minutes.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, Guest allison said:

I am trying to determine whether -- and under what circumstances -- a committee member who dissents in voting on a particular question is entitled to have her dissent recorded in the minutes.

Most seem to conclude that the member is not entitled to have her dissent recorded in the minutes, unless the majority authorizes recording the dissent. 

Rule 60, however, entitled "The Minutes," states that, "when the voting is by yeas and nays [the secretary] should enter a list of the names of those voting on each side."  

This language would seem to require the secretary to record a dissenting vote in the minutes whenever the vote is by yea or nay. 

You are citing the obsolete public domain edition. "Robert's Rules of Order Revised" (R.O.R.), Fourth Edition, 1915.

>> [whether] a committee member who dissents in voting on a particular question is entitled to have her dissent recorded in the minutes.  

kg: "Committee"? -- "Minutes"?

Committee meetings do not take minutes.

The product of a committee meeting is a report, to be presented to the superior body.

Q. Is your committee keeping minutes of its committee meetings? (This is quite unusual.)

***

>> conclude that the member is not entitled to have her dissent recorded in the minutes, unless the majority authorizes recording the dissent.

kg: Correct.

Minutes are not to contain debate or opinion or commentary. (An exception is made for the chair's argumentation for an appeal or a point of order.) The time to "dissent" is during debate. Not after a vote.

***

>> Rule 60, however, entitled "The Minutes," states that, "when the voting is by yeas and nays [the secretary] should enter a list of the names of those voting on each side."  

kg: "The taking of yeas and nays" refers to a ROLL CALL VOTE. (See R.O.R. 4th edition 1915, Section 25 "Division of the Assembly and other motions relating to voting").

The secretary writes down the NAME of each member, as called by the chair,  plus the member's VOTE (affirmative or negative) or the member's abstention, as the case may be.

So, yes, for a roll call vote, the secretary indeed writes down how every member voted, or abstained. No "permission" from the assembly is required when the voting method is by roll call.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

Except that it may very well require the permission of the assembly to order a roll-call vote in the first place, if there is no rule requiring one.

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Except that it may very well require the permission of the assembly to order a roll-call vote in the first place, if there is no rule requiring one.

Yes, it certainly will.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/31/2016 at 9:15 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Except that it may very well require the permission of the assembly to order a roll-call vote in the first place, if there is no rule requiring one.

 

17 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, it certainly will.

Why?

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 9:15 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Except that it may very well require the permission of the assembly to order a roll-call vote in the first place, if there is no rule requiring one.

 

On ‎1‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 6:25 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, it certainly will.

 

7 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Why?

Because the taking of a roll-call vote must be expressly ordered by the assembly or prescribed by its rules (RONR, 11th ed., p. 412, ll8-11).

In these responses, Mr. Novosielski (I assume) and I are both referring to the committee members present at the committee meeting at which the vote is taken as the "assembly", and not its parent assembly.

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In these responses, Mr. Novosielski (I assume) and I are both referring to the committee members present at the committee meeting at which the vote is taken as the "assembly", and not its parent assembly.

Oh. That would explain it.

I see now that Mr. Novosielski was probably responding to the last paragraph of the post by potzbie:

On 1/30/2016 at 5:12 PM, potzbie said:

So, yes, for a roll call vote, the secretary indeed writes down how every member voted, or abstained. No "permission" from the assembly is required when the voting method is by roll call.

For a while there, I thought we were having an advanced discussion suitable for the Advanced Discussion forum.

[Dan Honemann]

33 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

For a while there, I thought we were having an advanced discussion suitable for the Advanced Discussion forum.

Really? So when's the last time we had one of those?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Oh. That would explain it.

I see now that Mr. Novosielski was probably responding to the last paragraph of the post by potzbie:

For a while there, I thought we were having an advanced discussion suitable for the Advanced Discussion forum.

Geez!

And I was responding to the "entitled" argument or the original poster.

>> Most seem to conclude that the member is not entitled to have her dissent recorded

. . . i.e., no one needs to be "entitled" to have one's negative vote recorded,  when the very nature of "yeas and nays" is that the "dissent" is automatically recorded, by rule. -- i.e., no permission is needed (as permission is built-in to the system).

 

[Gary Novosielski]

30 minutes ago, potzbie said:

Geez!

And I was responding to the "entitled" argument or the original poster.

>> Most seem to conclude that the member is not entitled to have her dissent recorded

. . . i.e., no one needs to be "entitled" to have one's negative vote recorded,  when the very nature of "yeas and nays" is that the "dissent" is automatically recorded, by rule. -- i.e., no permission is needed (as permission is built-in to the system).

 

You're correct that no none needs to be entitled to have her dissent recorded if the yeas and nays are ordered, but neither is one entitled to have the yeas and nays ordered.  That is, a roll call vote cannot be ordered upon the demand of a single member.  

So, absent any special rules, if the member wishes to have her negative vote recorded in the minutes, the proper way would be to move that when the question is put, a roll-call vote be used.  But it should also be remembered that a roll call vote "should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency." (RONR §45)  

<rant>Having one's vote recorded in the minutes when one does not represent a constituency serves no purpose except to stoke the member's vanity, and in my view should not be encouraged.  It reminds me of the way some people routinely abstain and want their abstentions "noted for the record", presumably because they are proud of the their own inability to reach a decision.</rant>

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

<rant>Having one's vote recorded in the minutes when one does not represent a constituency serves no purpose except to stoke the member's vanity, and in my view should not be encouraged.  It reminds me of the way some people routinely abstain and want their abstentions "noted for the record", presumably because they are proud of the their own inability to reach a decision.</rant>

Gary, I disagree, especially when it comes to board members, etc.  (And I realize board members do represent a constituency).  Some state corporation laws provide that members and directors who dissent to action being taken can be relieved of liability if they have their dissent noted in the minutes or records of the association.  Members (and directors) can have various reasons for having their dissent noted in the minutes.  It has been my experience that permission to have such dissent noted in the minutes is usually granted at the member's request by unanimous consent.  It is ultimately up to the assembly.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Gary, I disagree, especially when it comes to board members, etc.  (And I realize board members do represent a constituency).  Some state corporation laws provide that members and directors who dissent to action being taken can be relieved of liability if they have their dissent noted in the minutes or records of the association.  Members (and directors) can have various reasons for having their dissent noted in the minutes.  It has been my experience that permission to have such dissent noted in the minutes is usually granted at the member's request by unanimous consent.  It is ultimately up to the assembly.

Richard, I understand, and you are right and there are many exceptions to my generalized rant (which is the nature of rants).  

In fact, one strange exception that applies in NJ, my former bailiwick, holds that in executive session of a public body, if a member believes that discussion has exceeded the legal bounds set by the Sunshine laws with respect to permitted topics, he may demand that his objection be noted in the minutes, and he is thereby relieved of culpability, and may remain in the meeting.  (Why this could not be handled by point of order and appeal--which would automatically put his objection it in the minutes--is beyond me, but it is what it is.) 

Still, in a wide variety of clubs, societies, klatches, liberation fronts, and the like, there is an annoyingly (to me) large number of people who insist that their votes, and especially there abstinence therefrom, be recorded for (presumably) future archæologists to admire--all living witnesses having promptly forgotten the entire affair before the ink was dry on the minutes. 

[Weldon Merritt]

11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

(Why this could not be handled by point of order and appeal--which would automatically put his objection it in the minutes--is beyond me, but it is what it is.) 

Probably becauue those who create such rules have no clue about Point of Order and Appeal.