Minutes - what are the rules regarding Identifying a board member who has abstained from a vote in the minutes?

[Guest Kristi Chapman]

Hi everyone! I am wondering what the rules are regarding Identifying a board member who has abstained from a vote in the minutes: do you need to identify the member by name or can you leave that out? Thanks for any guidance you can provide.

[Bruce Lages]

You would only need to identify him by name and how he voted if the vote was taken by roll call. Otherwise no names are involved, and the result of a vote is recorded as just 'passed' or 'defeated' (or similar wording) in the case of a voice vote or show of hands vote, or as 'passed' or 'defeated' together with the vote totals for each - plus other information (see RONR 12th ed. 45:37) - for a ballot vote.

[Guest Zev]

If I had voted against a motion or abstained and immediately after the vote another member gained the floor and moved that "the minutes reflect the fact that Mr. Zev abstained from this vote" at this moment I am unsure how to prevent this other than gaining the floor in debate and urging the other members to reject the motion. While no general record is kept unless it is a roll call, I cannot detect that such a motion would be out of order. Perhaps I have forgotten something in this regard.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/4/2022 at 12:44 AM, Guest Zev said:

If I had voted against a motion or abstained and immediately after the vote another member gained the floor and moved that "the minutes reflect the fact that Mr. Zev abstained from this vote" at this moment I am unsure how to prevent this other than gaining the floor in debate and urging the other members to reject the motion. While no general record is kept unless it is a roll call, I cannot detect that such a motion would be out of order. Perhaps I have forgotten something in this regard.

You have it right that the assembly may order additional information to be recorded in the minutes, by majority vote. Normally a request to record the fact that a particular member abstained (or voted no) is made by the member who cast the vote (or abstained), although I ultimately see no reason why the request could not be made by another member.

"To modify the rules governing what is regularly to be included in the minutes requires adoption of a special rule of order, although a majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 48:3

[Rob Elsman]

The correct terminology is that a motion is adopted (or carried) or rejected (or lost).  RONR (12th ed.) does not use the terms "passed" or "defeated", although these terms are often used in legislative bodies.  See RONR (12th ed.) 4:3.

[Rob Elsman]

The proper motion is an incidental motion, Motion Relating to Methods of Voting or the Polls, RONR (12th ed.) §30.  The proper form is, "I move that the vote on this question be taken by roll call".

The motion, "[I move that] the minutes reflect the fact that Mr. Zev abstained from this vote" is not in order on account of improper form.  Moreover, if Mr. Zev had known at the time the vote was taken that his abstention might later be recorded, he might have decided to vote, instead.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/4/2022 at 2:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The proper motion is an incidental motion, Motion Relating to Methods of Voting or the Polls, RONR (12th ed.) §30.  The proper form is, "I move that the vote on this question be taken by roll call".

The motion, "[I move that] the minutes reflect the fact that Mr. Zev abstained from this vote" is not in order on account of improper form.  Moreover, if Mr. Zev had known at the time the vote was taken that his abstention might later be recorded, he might have decided to vote, instead.

Mr. Elsman, suppose that Mr. Zev made the request to record his abstention. Would the request still be out of order? Additionally, do you believe the rules on this matter could be suspended? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/4/2022 at 3:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The proper motion is an incidental motion, Motion Relating to Methods of Voting or the Polls, RONR (12th ed.) §30.  The proper form is, "I move that the vote on this question be taken by roll call".

But that's not what was wanted.

 

On 2/4/2022 at 3:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The motion, "[I move that] the minutes reflect the fact that Mr. Zev abstained from this vote" is not in order on account of improper form. 

What's improper about the form?  You might not like the effect, but what's wrong with the form?

 

On 2/4/2022 at 5:46 PM, Josh Martin said:

Moreover, if Mr. Zev had known at the time the vote was taken that his abstention might later be recorded, he might have decided to vote, instead.

Perhaps, but even if so, I don't see the relevance.  Is abstention something to be ashamed of?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/4/2022 at 3:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The proper motion is an incidental motion, Motion Relating to Methods of Voting or the Polls, RONR (12th ed.) §30.  The proper form is, "I move that the vote on this question be taken by roll call".

But that's not what was wanted.

 

On 2/4/2022 at 3:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The motion, "[I move that] the minutes reflect the fact that Mr. Zev abstained from this vote" is not in order on account of improper form. 

What's improper about the form?  You might not like the effect, but what's wrong with the form?

 

On 2/4/2022 at 3:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Moreover, if Mr. Zev had known at the time the vote was taken that his abstention might later be recorded, he might have decided to vote, instead.

Perhaps, but even if so, I don't see the relevance.  Is abstention something to be ashamed of?

Edited February 5, 2022 at 12:00 AM by Gary Novosielski
repair quote

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Zev's motion, Request for a [Miscellaneous] Privilege, is in order.  If not handled as a unanimous consent request, the motion requires a majority vote.  RONR (12th ed.) 33:22.

[Guest RWl]

If I were a member of this body I would be more worried about why they want to record my abstention in the minutes than the correct way in which to do so.  

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/4/2022 at 5:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You might not like the effect, but what's wrong with the form?

 

The motion does not conform to the proper form for a Motion Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls.  Contrast Mr. Zev's motion with the form of the example in List III, Motion 96, at RONR (12th ed.) t43.  I acknowledge that I periodically get criticized on this forum for saying that a motion is not in order on account of improper form, but the good form of a motion is necessary to identify exactly what motion is being made and, thus, what characteristics the motion possesses.

[Atul Kapur]

This appears to be confusing form with intent. Your insistence on using a motion to order a roll call changes the mover's intent and, if it were done from the chair, would be in violation of 4:18.

The intent of Guest Zev's motion is to record one person's abstention, not the vote of every person. Although I may not support such a motion, I am of the opinion that Mr. Martin has shown how it is in order under 48:3.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/5/2022 at 1:08 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The motion does not conform to the proper form for a Motion Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls.  Contrast Mr. Zev's motion with the form of the example in List III, Motion 96, at RONR (12th ed.) t43.  I acknowledge that I periodically get criticized on this forum for saying that a motion is not in order on account of improper form, but the good form of a motion is necessary to identify exactly what motion is being made and, thus, what characteristics the motion possesses.

Since the voting has ended, and the results announced, I would not consider this a Motion Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls.  It is simply a motion to have extraneous information included in the minutes, and for that purpose the form seems fine.  (But I'd probably vote against it.)

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/4/2022 at 4:46 PM, Josh Martin said:

Additionally, do you believe the rules on this matter could be suspended? 

I do not think there is any need to suspend any rules.  The ordinary and proper procedure for recorded votes, when doing so has any legitimate purpose at all, is to take the vote by roll call (or, more rarely, signed ballot).  Why get all tangled up in Mr. Zev's intent?  He either does or does not want a recorded vote.  If he is unable to frame a properly formed motion, the chair should, of course, give some assistance; but, it is not the chair's role to toss aside the rules just because a member does not know the proper procedures.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/7/2022 at 9:09 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not think there is any need to suspend any rules.  The ordinary and proper procedure for recorded votes, when doing so has any legitimate purpose at all, is to take the vote by roll call (or, more rarely, signed ballot).  Why get all tangled up in Mr. Zev's intent?  He either does or does not want a recorded vote.  If he is unable to frame a properly formed motion, the chair should, of course, give some assistance; but, it is not the chair's role to toss aside the rules just because a member does not know the proper procedures.

I agree that there is no need to suspend any rules. And I also agree that it would be preferable to move (before the vote is taken) to have a roll call vote. But I disagree that a motion (after the vote) to have a specific member's abstention recorded would be out of order. RONR specifically says that matter not normally included in the minutes may be included by majority vote at the time the minutes are considered for approval. I personally would vote against the motion, unless it was made by the member who abstained (and maybe even then unless that member articulated a good reason), but as chair, I would not rule it out of order. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:09 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not think there is any need to suspend any rules.  The ordinary and proper procedure for recorded votes, when doing so has any legitimate purpose at all, is to take the vote by roll call (or, more rarely, signed ballot).  Why get all tangled up in Mr. Zev's intent?  He either does or does not want a recorded vote.  If he is unable to frame a properly formed motion, the chair should, of course, give some assistance; but, it is not the chair's role to toss aside the rules just because a member does not know the proper procedures.

Let me ask more clearly. If it is the assembly's wish to record the vote (or abstention) of a single member, as opposed to recording the votes or abstentions of all members, do you believe there is any mechanism by which the assembly may properly do this?

I'm not entirely certain whether you are saying the answer to this question is "no" or you are just trying to avoid answering the question.

Edited February 7, 2022 at 04:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/7/2022 at 11:36 AM, Josh Martin said:

Let me ask more clearly. If it is the assembly's wish to record the vote (or abstention) of a single member, as opposed to recording the votes or abstentions of all members, do you believe there is any mechanism by which the assembly may properly do this?

I'm not entirely certain whether you are saying the answer to this question is "no" or you are just trying to avoid answering the question.

Just to add to the confusion, I'll jump in here to say that I'm not fond of questions worded in this fashion. How is anyone to know what an assembly's wish is until the assembly has expressed it in some fashion.

Aren't we here concerned with the goal of a member, and whether he is or is not using the proper motion to achieve it?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/7/2022 at 9:51 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Aren't we here concerned with the goal of a member, and whether he is or is not using the proper motion to achieve it?

I think we are. And if the member's goal is to have the abstention of a single member recorded in the minutes, I see nothing in RONR that would prevent the member from achieving that goal. The assembly could prevent it by voting against the motion. But I don't see how the motion would violate any rule in RONR. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:29 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree that there is no need to suspend any rules. And I also agree that it would be preferable to move (before the vote is taken) to have a roll call vote. But I disagree that a motion (after the vote) to have a specific member's abstention recorded would be out of order. RONR specifically says that matter not normally included in the minutes may be included by majority vote at the time the minutes are considered for approval. I personally would vote against the motion, unless it was made by the member who abstained (and maybe even then unless that member articulated a good reason), but as chair, I would not rule it out of order. 

It is also in order to move that the vote be taken by roll call immediately after the announcement of the result of a vote by an unrecorded method.

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/7/2022 at 10:36 AM, Josh Martin said:

Let me ask more clearly. If it is the assembly's wish to record the vote (or abstention) of a single member, as opposed to recording the votes or abstentions of all members, do you believe there is any mechanism by which the assembly may properly do this?

I'm not entirely certain whether you are saying the answer to this question is "no" or you are just trying to avoid answering the question.

A motion (or unanimous consent request) to grant the privilege to an individual member to have his own vote, or abstention from voting, entered on the minutes may be in order without a suspension of the rules.  RONR (12th ed.) 48:3; §33.  Before the addition of language in 48:33 in the 12th edition, I would not have said this.  What is said in RONR (12th ed.) §30 is not relevant to this particular case and does not apply.

Otherwise, the less specific rule at RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 must yield to the more specific rules at RONR (12th ed.) §30.  See RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(3).

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/7/2022 at 12:50 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It is also in order to move that the vote be taken by roll call immediately after the announcement of the result of a vote by an unrecorded method.

True. I overlooked that fact/ But it doesn't change my opinion of the propriety of a motion to record an individual member's abstention.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/7/2022 at 1:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Otherwise, the less specific rule at RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 must yield to the more specific rules at RONR (12th ed.) §30.  See RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(3).

I don't buy it. The member is not seeking to change the method of voting, just how a specific vote is recorded. However, I will say that I don't find your interpretation unreasonable. If there is a difference of opinion in the assembly, it can be resolved by a Point of Order and Appeal.

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/7/2022 at 3:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Otherwise, the less specific rule at RONR (12th ed.) 48:3 must yield to the more specific rules at RONR (12th ed.) §30.  See RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(3).

 

On 2/7/2022 at 4:25 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I don't buy it. The member is not seeking to change the method of voting, just how a specific vote is recorded. However, I will say that I don't find your interpretation unreasonable. If there is a difference of opinion in the assembly, it can be resolved by a Point of Order and Appeal.

Mr. Merritt is much more generous than I.

The rules in §30 are, in fact, so specific to the methods of voting that they do not touch on (much less conflict with) the matters covered in 48:3 in regards to Guest Zev's motion to record one individual's abstention. So 56:68 is not necessary here. We all understand that a motion for a roll call vote is a possibility but it is a distraction to the question being asked.

As I understand Mr. Elsman's position, he is saying that a member may make a motion to have their own vote or abstention recorded in the minutes, under the provision of 48:3. But he states that the same motion is not in order if the motion is to record another person's (or several persons', but not all) vote or abstention in the minutes. I do not see the rationale for the differentiation.

If Mr. Elsman cares to provide the rationale for this specific differentiation, I wonder if he could expand it to include his position on a motion to record the abstentions or votes of the mover and a number of others who abstained or voted the same way as the mover.

 

Edited February 7, 2022 at 11:08 PM by Atul Kapur

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/7/2022 at 5:05 PM, Atul Kapur said:

he is saying that a member may make a motion to have their own vote or abstention recorded in the minutes

No, I am saying that a member may make a motion to have his own vote or abstention recorded in the minutes.  A pronoun agrees with its antecedent in number.  😊