Can a board member abstain from part of a motion?

[Guest questiontime]

We had a situation where a motion was made to approve 3 sets of previous minutes (3 different items). A Board member didn't attend 2 of the 3 previous meetings, so wanted to abstain from that portion. Is this possible? My understanding is that they would need to fully participate or fully abstain, and that nothing would preclude them from still approving minutes for meetings they did not attend. TYIA

[Richard Brown]

First off, you should not actually be voting on approving minutes.  Per RONR, once there are no corrections (or no further corrections) to the minutes, the chair simply declares them approved by saying something to the effect of, "There being no correcctions (or no further corrections), the minutes of the October 11 meeting are approved".  That's it. no vote should be taken.  Actually, a motion to approve the minutes is not necessary or recommended since no vote on actual approval is taken.  The only proper way to object to object to approving the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.  jFor more information, see sections 41:9 - 12 of RONR (12th ed.).

Secondly, it doesn't matter whether certain members were absent from the meeting for which the minutes are being approved.  All CURRENT members who are present at the meeting at which the minutes are being approved may participate, regardless of whether they were present at the meeting for which the minutes are being approved. 41:11 (RONR, 12th ed.).

[Bruce Lages]

Actually, there should be no motion to approve the minutes. The chair asks for any corrections and after any corrections are made, either by unanimous consent or by majority vote if there is not unanimous consent, the chair declares the minutes accepted (RONR, 12th ed. 41:9-10). The only way to object to approval of the minutes is to offer a correction. In your case, each set of minutes should have been brought up for approval separately, which may be what was done.

You are correct that not attending a meeting does not preclude a member from offering corrections to the minutes of that meeting. The most obvious example of this is if the member's name is  mentioned in the minutes when the member was not present at the meeting. However, nothing in RONR requires a member to 'fully participate or fully abstain' on any issue of parliamentary procedure.

[Guest questiontime]

This is a public hearing body that only uses Robert's Rules as a guide. Does this affect whether or not we should be actually voting on approving minutes? Looking at other similar public hearing bodies in my region (via publicly posted minutes) they are also voting and approving previous minutes. 

[Atul Kapur]

Many organizations believe that a formal motion and vote are required, despite the language in RONR. 

Some evem believe that it a legal requirement. I haven't seen this actually stated in any law, but I'm not a lawyer. If a lawyer tells you that it's a legal requirement, please ask them to show you where (and then share with us, please).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:45 AM, Guest questiontime said:

We had a situation where a motion was made to approve 3 sets of previous minutes (3 different items). A Board member didn't attend 2 of the 3 previous meetings, so wanted to abstain from that portion. Is this possible? My understanding is that they would need to fully participate or fully abstain, and that nothing would preclude them from still approving minutes for meetings they did not attend. TYIA

As my colleagues have pointed out, voting on approval of minutes is not proper procedure anyway, so there's really nothing to abstain from. A member who offers no corrections is assumed to consent to approval of those minutes.  The only way to object to approval is to offer a correction, and even if your correction is not agreed to, your objection is noted but then does not interfere with approval.  When there are no (further) corrections, the minutes stand approved.

But as a general matter, the problem seems to be that you are trying to approve three meetings at a time, rather than approving the oldest meeting first, then the next, and then the most recent.  It's really three different questions, and corrections would be in order for any of them. 

The general rule is that when a motion is made combining multiple distinct questions, any member may demand that the motion be divided so that he can debate, vote, or otherwise deal separately with the different parts.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/11/2022 at 12:41 PM, Guest questiontime said:

This is a public hearing body that only uses Robert's Rules as a guide. Does this affect whether or not we should be actually voting on approving minutes? Looking at other similar public hearing bodies in my region (via publicly posted minutes) they are also voting and approving previous minutes. 

I formerly served on a public body in NJ, that moved, seconded, voted (by roll-call yet) on minutes approval at every meeting.  When I became president, I had our attorney check into whether the RONR approval method would be acceptable.  He was unable to find any prohibition in statute, code, or case law, and for the final years of my service there, approval of minutes took mere seconds.

Of course you'll need to do your own checking, but don't be surprised if just because everyone is doing it, that doesn't mean it's right.

[Guest questiontime]

Thanks everyone, this has been very helpful and offers a change to consider in the future.

For this particular past hearing, how should what happened be recorded for the record?

"Board Member X made a motion to approve the October 1, 2022, October 2, 2022, and October 3, 2022 meeting minutes. Board Member Y seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0 (October 1, 2022 meeting minutes) and 3-0 (October 2, 2022, and October 3, 2022 meeting minutes; Board Member Z abstained)."

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

I wanted to provide a citation for the above advice that when independent motions have been combined into a single motion, one member has a right to demand a separate vote on one or more of them.  See RONR (12th ed.) 27:10, which says:

"Motions That Must Be Divided on Demand. Sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion. In such a case, one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member, and the motion for Division of a Question is not used. Such a demand (which should not be confused with a demand for a division of the assembly—that is, for a rising vote) can be made even when another has the floor, as in, “Mr. President, I call for a separate vote on Resolution No. 3.” This demand must be asserted before the question on adopting the series has actually been put to vote."

Also, if this public hearing body operates only under RONR, and there's no superseding legal requirement, the name of the seconder isn't included in the minutes.  See RONR (12th ed.) 48:5(1):

"The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly."

[Joshua Katz]

On 10/11/2022 at 12:32 PM, Guest questiontime said:

For this particular past hearing, how should what happened be recorded for the record?

 

As it happened.

On 10/11/2022 at 12:32 PM, Guest questiontime said:

"Board Member X made a motion to approve the October 1, 2022, October 2, 2022, and October 3, 2022 meeting minutes. Board Member Y seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0 (October 1, 2022 meeting minutes) and 3-0 (October 2, 2022, and October 3, 2022 meeting minutes; Board Member Z abstained)."

There is no need for the minutes to include the names of members abstaining.

[Richard Brown]

On 10/11/2022 at 12:32 PM, Guest questiontime said:

For this particular past hearing, how should what happened be recorded for the record?

“The minutes of the October 1, October 2, and October 3 meetings were approved“.  That’s all that really needs to be said.  However, the minutes could also read something like this, as appropriate: “The minutes of the October 1 meeting were approved as read. The minutes of the October 2 meeting were approved as corrected. The minutes of the October 3 meeting were approved as distributed.“  Use whatever is appropriate, but the simple statement that the minutes were approved is actually all that is necessary,  especially if there were no corrections.

As others have pointed out, there’s no need to record the names of the people who moved and seconded the motion to approve the minutes. Indeed, there is no need for a motion to approve the minutes at all and there should be no vote taken on approving the minutes. The chair should simply declare them approved once there are no more corrections.

Edited October 12, 2022 at 01:54 PM by Richard Brown

[Richard Brown]

On 10/11/2022 at 10:45 AM, Guest questiontime said:

We had a situation where a motion was made to approve 3 sets of previous minutes (3 different items). A Board member didn't attend 2 of the 3 previous meetings, so wanted to abstain from that portion. Is this possible? My understanding is that they would need to fully participate or fully abstain, and that nothing would preclude them from still approving minutes for meetings they did not attend. TYIA

I want to address just the bolded portion of your question, which I don't believe anyone has specifically addressed, but I'm going to do it in a general way.  As we have explained, no vote should actually be taken on approving the minutes and all members who are present at the current meeting may participate in the approval of the minutes of prior meetings regardless of whether they attended those meetings.

However, if, for the sake of this discussion,  the membership was to vote on approving these minutes.... or to be voting on something else.... members may freely abstain from whatever votes they choose to abstain from and they do not need a reason (and certainly don't need to state a reason) for doing so.

The bottom line, when it comes to abstaining, is that members are free to abstain from whatever votes they choose to abstain from.  However, if three "items" are being voted on in one combined motion with only one vote, members could not abstain from only certain of the items unless the question has been divided so that each item or some of the items are being voted on separately and the one motion becomes two or more separate motions.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/11/2022 at 11:41 AM, Guest questiontime said:

This is a public hearing body that only uses Robert's Rules as a guide. Does this affect whether or not we should be actually voting on approving minutes? Looking at other similar public hearing bodies in my region (via publicly posted minutes) they are also voting and approving previous minutes. 

The fact that this is a public body does not change the fact that, so far as Robert's Rules is concerned, there is no need to take a vote on approving the minutes.

It may be that there is a requirement under applicable law for public bodies in your state to vote on approving the minutes. That would be a question for an attorney.

As noted, it is a very common misconception that voting on approving minutes is required, so I don't know that the fact that other public bodies are also doing this, in and of itself, is sufficient evidence that such a requirement exists.

On 10/11/2022 at 8:08 PM, Joshua Katz said:

There is no need for the minutes to include the names of members abstaining.

Not under RONR, anyway. It may well be there is such a requirement for this public body, due to applicable law or the assembly's own rules.

Edited October 12, 2022 at 04:27 PM by Josh Martin