explanation of vote

[Guest Joan Banez]

At our City Council meetings members had always been allowed to give a short explanation of their vote before a resolution or ordinance, if so desired. The governing body is now trying to take that precedent away as Robert's rules states an explanation should not be allowed. Is this change of precedent correct or proper?

[Richard Brown]

If the council has its own special rules of order, as I'm sure most city councils do, it may promulgate its own rule on the matter which will supersede the rule in RONR.  Also, even without such a special rule of order, the council  may suspend the rule to permit members to explain their votes.  It may be that the council has gotten into the rather sloppy habit suspending the rules by unanimous consent without a specific motion to suspend the rules.  In other words, it has simply been ignoring the rule, perhaps out of ignorance.

If your council has no special rule of order on the subject, but has been doing this as a matter of custom, it amounts to a custom which must fall to the ground if it violates a written rule and any member makes a point of order that it violates a written rule.  It does violate a written rule in the council's parliamentary authority, so if a member makes a point of order that it violates the rules, the chair should find the point of order well taken and prohibit any further explanation of votes unless the rules are explicitly suspended to permit it on a case by case basis or the council adopts a special rule of order permitting it.

[George Mervosh]

10 minutes ago, Guest Joan Banez said:

At our City Council meetings members had always been allowed to give a short explanation of their vote before a resolution or ordinance, if so desired. The governing body is now trying to take that precedent away as Robert's rules states an explanation should not be allowed. Is this change of precedent correct or proper?

"A member has no right to "explain his vote" during voting, which would be the same as debate at such a time. "  RONR (11th ed.), p. 408

If Robert's Rules governs this matter, and the Council wishes to continue their custom of allowing an explanation they should codify it by rule, otherwise the rule in RONR applies.

[Rob Elsman]

I am unclear whether these "explanations" are being made before or after the vote on the resolution or ordinance is taken. Before a vote is taken on a debatable motion, it is perfectly acceptable for a  member to say whether he is in favor of, or opposed to, the immediately pending motion and why he has made that judgment. After the vote is taken, however, a member may only "explain" his vote if he intends to end his remarks by making a motion to Reconsider (assuming the motion can be reconsidered and the maker is qualified to make the motion) or Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (applied to a previously adopted main motion and when no other motion is pending).

[Richard Brown]

55 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

I am unclear whether these "explanations" are being made before or after the vote on the resolution or ordinance is taken.

I am not sure, either.  The original poster was not clear on that point.

55 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Before a vote is taken on a debatable motion, it is perfectly acceptable for a  member to say whether he is in favor of, or opposed to, the immediately pending motion and why he has made that judgment.

I agree with that statement, but only in part:  It is proper, DURING DEBATE, for the member who is speaking in debate to state how he intends to vote on a motion and why.  However, after the member has spoken in debate, or even if he did not speak in debate, it is NOT appropriate for him to blurt out how he intends to vote unless he has not spoken more than once and has sought and received recognition from the chair.  Any statements made by the member at that time could properly be considered additional debate.  But if the member has  already spoken twice or has not sought and received recognition, it is not proper for him to "explain" his vote either prior to or after casting the vote, unless the rules are suspended to permit it.   However, I have noticed that members of public bodies quite frequently explain their reasons for a vote immediately after the vote is taken.  I have seen it happen many times, but I don't think I have ever seen a council chairman tell a member that such remarks are out of order. 

Caveat:  Since this is a public body and is probably subject to the state's open meetings laws, there may be circumstances pursuant to state law when it is appropriate for a member to explain why he is abstaining on a vote. 

Edited to add:  Upon re-reading the original post, it does seem fairly clear that the members are offering their "explanations" prior to the vote being taken.  If members are doing that as part of their speaking in debate, it is perfectly proper.

Edited January 7, 2020 at 10:09 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Gary Novosielski]

9 hours ago, Guest Joan Banez said:

At our City Council meetings members had always been allowed to give a short explanation of their vote before a resolution or ordinance, if so desired. The governing body is now trying to take that precedent away as Robert's rules states an explanation should not be allowed. Is this change of precedent correct or proper?

If you have no written rule on the subject apart from RONR, then the change is proper.

But note well that this does not effectively prevent any members from giving short explanations of their votes.  All it does is prevent them from doing so at the time of voting, which is a prohibition I completely agree with. 

The appropriate time for members to express and explain their support of or opposition to a question is during debate.  There's certainly no rule against doing so at the appropriate time.