Safety of the Members

[Wright Stuff]

Our organization held a vote to remove a member. The vote did not achieve the required two-thirds threshold. A friend of the accused called for a roll call vote, which was done. There was not a vote on whether to hold a roll call vote. The troublemakers are now demanding a list of the voters and how they voted. With a roll call vote, I think they are entitled to it. However, up to and since the meeting, there have been threats leveled against some of the members who voted to remove. Even though he will be in violation of RONR as he understands them, the President has decided not to provide the names to the bad guys. While he is very much a by-the-book guy, he thinks the personal safety of the members is a higher priority than providing the list. 

The argument could be made that the other side already has the names, but they're still requesting the list. Maybe they missed a few. Is there any way that this matter can be handled other than the President ordering a violation of the rules? The vote was supposed to be by secret ballot, but I'm not sure what happened. This situation is admittedly bad and poorly handled. What's the best solution under these unfortunate circumstances? (To be clear, I'm on the President's side.)

Edited April 5, 2023 at 10:38 PM by Wright Stuff

[Josh Martin]

On 4/5/2023 at 5:27 PM, Wright Stuff said:

A friend of the accused called for a roll call vote, which was done. There was not a vote on whether to hold a roll call vote.

At this point, what's done is done. For future reference, however, it requires a majority vote to order a roll call vote, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

I would also note that, quite frankly, there may not be any point in holding a roll call vote, depending on the nature of the organization. The purpose of a roll call vote is so that the votes in a representative body are placed on record for the constituents of the members to review.

It also seems very possible that in these circumstances, a ballot vote would be required, and a motion for a roll call vote would not be in order.

On 4/5/2023 at 5:27 PM, Wright Stuff said:

The troublemakers are now demanding a list of the voters and how they voted. With a roll call vote, I think they are entitled to it

This is essentially correct. A roll call vote must be entered in full in the minutes, and members have a right to access the minutes.

On 4/5/2023 at 5:27 PM, Wright Stuff said:

However, up to and since the meeting, there have been threats leveled against some of the members who voted to remove. Even though he will be in violation of RONR as he understands them, the President has decided not to provide the names to the bad guys. While he is very much a by-the-book guy, he thinks the personal safety of the members is a higher priority than providing the list. 

The President doesn't have anything to do with it. The Secretary is the custodian of the minutes. The President has no authority under RONR to order the Secretary to withhold access to the minutes from certain members. So really it is ultimately up to the Secretary, not the President, to make the decisions in this matter.

To the extent there is concern regarding members' safety, that is largely beyond the scope of RONR and this forum, although Section 63 regarding discipline may be of interest. Other questions, however, will need to be directed to an attorney and/or law enforcement.

On 4/5/2023 at 5:27 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Is there any way that this matter can be handled other than the President ordering a violation of the rules?

No, at least not within RONR. Maybe there is something in applicable law that would be of assistance.

On 4/5/2023 at 5:27 PM, Wright Stuff said:

What's the best solution under these unfortunate circumstances?

Under RONR, the only proper option is to provide access to the members to review the minutes, as is their right. The one potential saving grace in this regard is that, strictly speaking, members do not have a right to review the minutes until they are approved by the assembly. So that will buy some time, but will not ultimately resolve the issue.

I would strongly advise consulting an attorney regarding this matter. Based upon the facts presented, I believe RONR will be the least of the organization's problems.

Edited April 6, 2023 at 12:36 AM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:33 PM, Josh Martin said:

Under RONR, the only proper option is to provide access to the members to review the minutes, as is their right. The one potential saving grace in this regard is that, strictly speaking, members do not have a right to review the minutes until they are approved by the assembly. So that will buy some time, but will not ultimately resolve the issue.

I had not thought about the minutes not being approved yet. Thanks for correcting me on the President versus the Secretary. That's a silly oversight. 

I'm not sure where we go from here.

[Wright Stuff]

If I may, the requirement that the Secretary report the names of the roll call vote is from RONR. There is no similar requirement in the bylaws. As the time for the meeting is approaching, I'm still trying to make sure there is not an overlooked solution. Here's what I considered. Before the minutes are presented, would it be possible to have a motion to suspend the rules that require the minutes include the names of the voters? (The vote count is there.) "I move that we suspend the rules that require inclusion of the names of the voters in this matter." We can probably attain the 2/3 majority required to pass. Is that procedure possible?

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't know what you mean by 

On 5/3/2023 at 1:13 PM, Wright Stuff said:

the requirement that the Secretary report the names of the roll call vote is from RONR.

I described to you earlier how corrections to the minutes are offered.  I did not say it was done by a motion to Suspend the Rules.  Corrections to the minutes require only a majority vote.  But it is certainly unusual not to include the names in the minutes of a roll-call vote.   That is the entire purpose of a roll-call vote.  If you don't want the names included don't use a roll-call vote in the first place.

Threats should be reported to the police.  And they are certainly sufficient grounds for expulsion.

Edited May 4, 2023 at 01:13 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/3/2023 at 9:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I described to you earlier how corrections to the minutes are offered.

I don't see where you've responded to me before. Can you please point me to that?

 

On 5/3/2023 at 9:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't know what you mean by 

On 5/3/2023 at 1:13 PM, Wright Stuff said:

the requirement that the Secretary report the names of the roll call vote is from RONR.

RONR: 45:52 In roll-call voting, a record of how each member voted, as well as the result of the vote, is entered in full in the journal or minutes.

The bylaws contain no reference to roll call voting. Therefore, the procedure is defined by RONR, as quoted above. If the names are recorded in the minutes, and the minutes have to be approved by the body, it's obvious that the members will have a written list of how each person voted. That's what we're trying to avoid.

The rules (in this case, RONR) say that the names must be recorded in the minutes. The rules (also RONR) also say that the minutes must be approved by the body. Therefore, the question is whether it is possible to Suspend the Rules (still RONR) that the names of the individuals must appear in the minutes. It's obvious that a mistake was made. Mistakes happen. The question is, what is the best way to recover from that mistake?

I'm trying to be an advocate for strict adherence to RONR (the rules) to avoid situations like these, but I'm consistently hearing from people that RONR is too complicated and that they are impossible for an organization to follow absent an expert who is not always available. I heard it at three county conventions and one state convention so far this year.

[puzzling]

The problem is not in Roberts rules , the problem was that the vote was done by roll call (and who ever agreed to that) 

Roberts rules state in 45:21 that:

 

When a vote is to be taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no action is in order that would force the disclosure of a members vote or views on the matter. 

Breaking this rule is a continuing breach of order (RONR 23:6 e) 

So it could be that during (or before) the minutes are discussed a point of order can be raised that the roll call vote was null and void and that therefore the results should not be in the minutes. 

It all would not have happened if you had followed the rules in the first place....

Edited May 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM by puzzling
Correction

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/4/2023 at 6:34 AM, puzzling said:

When a vote is to be taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no action is in order that would force the disclosure of a members vote or views on the matter.

 The vote was not taken by ballot. This reference is not on point in this discussion. The person "who ever (sic) agreed to that" is trying to learn RONR. People who are learning often make mistakes.

On 5/4/2023 at 6:34 AM, puzzling said:

Breaking this rule is a continuing breach of order (RONR 23:6 e) 

Not relevant to this discussion.

On 5/4/2023 at 6:34 AM, puzzling said:

So it could be that during (or before) the minutes are discussed a point of order can be raised that the roll call vote was null and void and that therefore the results should not be in the minutes. 

That would throw out the election results. Now we're down to form over function.

On 5/4/2023 at 6:34 AM, puzzling said:

It all would not have happened if you had followed the rules in the first place....

These harsh comments seem misplaced on this forum. I thought its purpose was to be helpful, not critical.

Unless one of the regulars here can offer a possible to solution to rectify the situation, I'll just recommend to leadership that they do what they want and that RONR doesn't have a solution.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/4/2023 at 6:34 AM, puzzling said:

Breaking this rule is a continuing breach of order (RONR 23:6 e) 

 

On 5/4/2023 at 8:12 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Not relevant to this discussion.

In your initial post you say that "The vote was supposed to be by secret ballot, but I'm not sure what happened."  What did you mean by this?  Why did you say that the vote was supposed to be by secret ballot?

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:47 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

In your initial post you say that "The vote was supposed to be by secret ballot, but I'm not sure what happened."  What did you mean by this?  Why did you say that the vote was supposed to be by secret ballot?

There was a different, earlier vote that was taken by secret ballot. There were no problems with that vote. A member called for a roll-call vote on the next election, which was equally contentious and should have been a ballot vote. During the meeting, because of leadership's lack of expertise with RONR, a member moved for a roll-call vote on the second election. In the heat of the moment, it slipped by. Out of ignorance, a vote was not taken by the body to require a roll-call vote (45:46), but no one objected. I will confess that I have spent time since my last post studying roll-call voting, as it is being used as a dilatory tactic by a faction of the group, and I'm more confused now than before. Based on my reading of RONR, since we have a mass meeting and since the members are not responsible to a constituency, we should not be having roll-call votes. (45:45). The purpose of my question is to seek help to clean up this mess. I'm advocating that we do everything "by the book", but I'm not clear on what the next steps should be.

When the motion for a roll-call vote was made on the second election, what action, if any, could or should have been taken to cause a ballot vote instead of a roll-call vote? Is voting down the roll-call vote the only option? This matter will arise again soon.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:18 AM, Wright Stuff said:

There was a different, earlier vote that was taken by secret ballot. There were no problems with that vote. A member called for a roll-call vote on the next election, which was equally contentious and should have been a ballot vote.

Once again you say that the vote "should have been a ballot vote", but you have not answered my question as to why you say this. Does any rule require that the vote be by ballot or are you just saying it should have been by ballot because you think it should have been?

[Richard Brown]

@Wright Stuffyou just referred to this vote as “an election“. I thought it was a motion to expel a member. What exactly was the nature of the vote  motion being voted on?

Also, you have not answered Mr. Honemann‘s question about why it is that you say that Vote should have been by secret ballot. Is that by virtue of some rule or bylaw provision in your organization? An answer to that question might be very helpful to us in trying to help you.

Edited May 4, 2023 at 01:30 PM by Richard Brown
Edited First paragraph as indicated

[Wright Stuff]

Sorry, I will do my best to answer every question answered.

Matters in our organization have become very contentious. "Our" side is trying to keep peace and follow the rules in the interest of fairness. The renegade side is doing everything it can to cause trouble (they were resoundingly defeated in the last election.) However, they still have members on the executive committee.

After the initial vote, which was held by secret ballot and is not a subject of this question, there were other votes (I referred to them as "elections" above) to fill vacancies. The contenders for those vacancies were people from each side. People on both sides had expressed concern that they did not want to be identified by name as to how they voted because of fear of retribution by the renegade side. The next vote after secret ballot was to fill a vacancy. It was held by voice vote. One of the troublemakers immediately called for a roll-call presumably for dilatory purposes since the vote was not that close. The chair acquiesced and then called for a roll-call vote. The secretary recorded the vote by name as she is required to do by RONR. As bizarre as it sounds after the fact, it did not occur to the chair that the vote should have been by ballot instead of by roll-call. In fact, even at this late date, the chair doesn't know how she should have handled the situation from the start. It just got out of hand.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:26 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Once again you say that the vote "should have been a ballot vote", but you have not answered my question as to why you say this. Does any rule require that the vote be by ballot or are you just saying it should have been by ballot because you think it should have been?

The short answer is leadership, knowing that the vote would be contentious, had announced that the vote (to expel) would be by secret ballot, and the incorrect assumption was that all of the contentious votes would be held be secret ballot. No organization rule requires that the vote be by secret ballot.

I apologize for not giving better answers. I'm trying. I'm learning. Thank you so much for your willingness to help us sort through this mess.

[Richard Brown]

As someone else mentioned (perhaps it was Write stuff), I am wondering if the rules  could be suspended so I as to not include the details of how each member voted in the minutes or if section 48:3 could be used to adopt a motion to exclude the detailed vote information from the roll call vote in the minutes.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/3/2023 at 12:13 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Before the minutes are presented, would it be possible to have a motion to suspend the rules that require the minutes include the names of the voters? (The vote count is there.) "I move that we suspend the rules that require inclusion of the names of the voters in this matter." We can probably attain the 2/3 majority required to pass. Is that procedure possible?

Yes, I think such a motion is in order. This certainly seems to be a much more appropriate way of resolving this matter than individual officers choosing to withhold the minutes from members. The assembly is the ultimate judge of the contents of its minutes.

In such circumstances, I suppose the minutes would record that the vote was taken by roll call, but that the roll call has been omitted from the minutes by order of the assembly.

On 5/3/2023 at 8:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I described to you earlier how corrections to the minutes are offered.  I did not say it was done by a motion to Suspend the Rules.  Corrections to the minutes require only a majority vote. 

Mr. Novosielski, in the circumstances described here, the "correction" which is proposed is not really "correcting" anything, but is instead proposing to remove an item which the rules of RONR require to be included. Is it still your belief that this "correction" requires only a majority vote for adoption?

On 5/4/2023 at 5:34 AM, puzzling said:

When a vote is to be taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no action is in order that would force the disclosure of a members vote or views on the matter. 

Yes, but based upon the additional facts presented, it appears the only reason it was believed that votes would be taken by ballot is that the officers said so, which is not sufficient. The rule on 45:21 refers to situations in which a ballot vote is required by rule or has been ordered by the assembly.

On 5/4/2023 at 5:34 AM, puzzling said:

So it could be that during (or before) the minutes are discussed a point of order can be raised that the roll call vote was null and void and that therefore the results should not be in the minutes. 

Based upon the facts presented, it does not appear to be correct that the roll call vote is "null and void," so I do not agree that a Point of Order could be raised that the results should not be in the minutes.

On 5/4/2023 at 8:18 AM, Wright Stuff said:

When the motion for a roll-call vote was made on the second election, what action, if any, could or should have been taken to cause a ballot vote instead of a roll-call vote? Is voting down the roll-call vote the only option?

Yes, I think simply voting down the motion for a roll call vote is the best solution.

On 5/4/2023 at 8:47 AM, Wright Stuff said:

After the initial vote, which was held by secret ballot and is not a subject of this question, there were other votes (I referred to them as "elections" above) to fill vacancies. The contenders for those vacancies were people from each side. People on both sides had expressed concern that they did not want to be identified by name as to how they voted because of fear of retribution by the renegade side. The next vote after secret ballot was to fill a vacancy. It was held by voice vote. One of the troublemakers immediately called for a roll-call presumably for dilatory purposes since the vote was not that close. The chair acquiesced and then called for a roll-call vote. The secretary recorded the vote by name as she is required to do by RONR. As bizarre as it sounds after the fact, it did not occur to the chair that the vote should have been by ballot instead of by roll-call. In fact, even at this late date, the chair doesn't know how she should have handled the situation from the start. It just got out of hand.

To by clear, even if it had occurred to the chair, the chair has no authority to decide that a particular vote shall be taken by ballot, unless the assembly's rules so provide. In In the absence of such rules, only the assembly can decide that a vote shall be taken by ballot. A member could have moved that the vote be taken by ballot. When the motion for a roll call vote was made, the chair should have taken a voice vote on the motion that the vote be retaken by roll call. In the long run, the assembly may wish to consider rules requiring particular matters be voted on by ballot.

I would also note that there appears to be confusion in your assembly regarding the purpose of a roll call vote. You say the roll call was "presumably for dilatory purposes since the vote was not that close," but this really has nothing to do with it. Even if the vote was close, the purpose of a roll call vote is not to determine the outcome of a close vote. There are other tools for that purpose, such as a rising vote and a counted rising vote. The purpose of a roll call vote is instead to force individual members of an assembly to go on record. It is used in assemblies which are responsible to a constituency, such as an elected public body, so that the persons they represent can see how their elected representatives voted.

On 5/4/2023 at 9:06 AM, Richard Brown said:

As someone else mentioned (perhaps it was Write stuff), I am wondering if the rules  could be suspended so I as to not include the details of how each member voted in the minutes or if section 48:3 could be used to adopt a motion to exclude the detailed vote information from the roll call vote in the minutes.

I don't think 48:3 is helpful here.

"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

The second portion of this rule is not applicable because this is about removing information, not adding additional information. The first could be applicable, but it would seem odd to adopt a rule providing that the results of a roll call vote would regularly be excluded from the minutes, because that would defeat the entire purpose of a roll call vote. It would seem simpler to adopt a rule that a motion for a roll call vote is not in order.

I believe the rules could be suspended to remove the information in question from the minutes.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/3/2023 at 1:13 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Here's what I considered. Before the minutes are presented, would it be possible to have a motion to suspend the rules that require the minutes include the names of the voters? (The vote count is there.) "I move that we suspend the rules that require inclusion of the names of the voters in this matter." We can probably attain the 2/3 majority required to pass. Is that procedure possible?

 

On 5/4/2023 at 10:06 AM, Richard Brown said:

As someone else mentioned (perhaps it was Write stuff), I am wondering if the rules  could be suspended so I as to not include the details of how each member voted in the minutes or if section 48:3 could be used to adopt a motion to exclude the detailed vote information from the roll call vote in the minutes.

Yes, I think that, particularly in this instance, the rule that the minutes must contain a record of how each member voted when a roll-call vote has been taken is a rule that can be suspended. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:18 AM, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Novosielski, in the circumstances described here, the "correction" which is proposed is not really "correcting" anything, but is instead proposing to remove an item which the rules of RONR require to be included. Is it still your belief that this "correction" requires only a majority vote for adoption?

If it were up to me, I'd say that it was flatly improper to omit the names of members in a roll-call vote.  But it's not up to me.

Specifically, I don't think I could find support for that view within the pages of the Book. The idea that the assembly is fully in control of what goes into their minutes and what doesn't is pretty firmly established.  They can include material that clearly doesn't belong there, and omit material that does, with no more than a majority vote.

It's clear that if there were a rule that roll-call votes are required in some instance, it would take a Suspension of the Rules to waive that requirement and order a counted rising vote, for example.  But I'm less convinced that it would take a two-thirds vote to scrub the names from the minutes, even though I'd be pleased if it did.

Edited May 4, 2023 at 02:59 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:58 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

If it were up to me, I'd say that it was flatly improper to omit the names of members in a roll-call vote.  But it's not up to me.

Specifically, I don't think I could find support for that view within the pages of the Book. The idea that the assembly is fully in control of what goes into their minutes and what doesn't is pretty firmly established.  They can include material that clearly doesn't belong there, and omit material that does, with no more than a majority vote.

It's clear that if there were a rule that roll-call votes are required in some instance, it would take a Suspension of the Rules to waive that requirement and order a counted rising vote, for example.  But I'm less convinced that it would take a two-thirds vote to scrub the names from the minutes, even though I'd be pleased if it did.

I disagree in part with the bolded sentence. RONR provides "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

So RONR is clear that the assembly, by majority vote, can order additional information to be included. But if the rules require particular information to be included - which is the case here - then it seems to me a suspension of the rules and a 2/3 vote is required to remove information.

"Additional rules and practices relating to the content of the minutes are the following: ...
c) When the voting is by roll call, the names of those voting on each side and those answering “present,” as well as the total number in each category, are entered. If members who are present fail to respond on a roll-call vote, enough of their names must be recorded as present to reflect that a quorum was present at the time of the vote. If the chair voted, no special mention of this fact is made in the minutes." RONR (12th ed.) 48:5

Edited May 4, 2023 at 03:06 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:58 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

If it were up to me, I'd say that it was flatly improper to omit the names of members in a roll-call vote.  But it's not up to me.

Specifically, I don't think I could find support for that view within the pages of the Book. The idea that the assembly is fully in control of what goes into their minutes and what doesn't is pretty firmly established.  They can include material that clearly doesn't belong there, and omit material that does. 

I agree with Mr. Martin.

"45:52    In roll-call voting, a record of how each member voted, as well as the result of the vote, is entered in full in the journal or minutes. If those responding to the roll call do not total a sufficient number to constitute a quorum, the chair must direct the secretary to enter the names of enough members who are present but not voting to reflect the attendance of a quorum during the vote."

This certainly constitutes a rule of order which will require a two-thirds vote for its suspension. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:06 AM, Josh Martin said:

I disagree in part with the bolded sentence. RONR provides "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

So RONR is clear that the assembly, by majority vote, can order additional information to be included. But if the rules require particular information to be included - which is the case here - then it seems to me a suspension of the rules and a 2/3 vote is required to remove information.

I did see that reference, but it seemed to me that the distinction being drawn was not so much between adding vs. striking material, but rather between what is regularly included vs. what is amended/corrected on a case-by-case basis. 

But you're right that striking material from the draft is not explicitly mentioned, so it's a fair point.

[Wright Stuff]

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to respond. It is extremely helpful. I'm sorry I'm not clearer in my questions, but I'm certainly trying to improve.

It doesn't appear that roll-call votes are appropriate for our body since we are a mass meeting and our members are not responsible to a constituency. How can we prevent roll-call votes in the future? (We haven't had success amending bylaws in the last five years. That's another story.) Can the chair call them out of order? I assume that he can't and that we have to vote down the motion each time, but is there a better or more expedient way?

[Josh Martin]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:48 AM, Wright Stuff said:

It doesn't appear that roll-call votes are appropriate for our body since we are a mass meeting and our members are not responsible to a constituency.

I don't agree from the facts presented that this assembly is a "mass meeting."

"A mass meeting, as understood in parliamentary law, is a meeting of an unorganized group, which—in a publicized or selectively distributed notice known as the call of the meeting—has been announced:
• as called to take appropriate action on a particular problem or toward a particular purpose stated by the meeting's sponsors, and
• as open to everyone interested in the stated problem or purpose (or to everyone within a specified sector of the population thus interested)." RONR (12th ed.) 53:1, emphasis in original

Everything from the facts presented here appears to suggest that this is a permanent organization with continuing existence, bylaws, and an established membership and officers.

Nonetheless, although I cannot say for certain because I am unclear as to the nature of this organization, it does appear that this assembly's "members are not responsible to a constituency" and that, as a result, roll call votes are inappropriate.

On 5/4/2023 at 11:48 AM, Wright Stuff said:

How can we prevent roll-call votes in the future?

Vote against them. Or you could adopt a rule prohibiting them, I suppose.

On 5/4/2023 at 11:48 AM, Wright Stuff said:

(We haven't had success amending bylaws in the last five years. That's another story.)

A rule in the bylaws on this matter would not be necessary. A special rule of order would suffice.

On 5/4/2023 at 11:48 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Can the chair call them out of order?

No, I don't think so. RONR notes the following:

"Taking a vote by roll call (or by yeas and nays, as it is also called) has the effect of placing on the record how each member, or sometimes each delegation, votes; therefore, it has exactly the opposite effect of a ballot vote. It is usually confined to representative bodies, where the proceedings are published, since it enables constituents to know how their representatives voted on certain measures. It should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency." RONR (12th ed.) 45:45

I don't think "should not be used" is quite the same as "out of order."

On 5/4/2023 at 11:48 AM, Wright Stuff said:

I assume that he can't and that we have to vote down the motion each time, but is there a better or more expedient way?

The assembly could adopt a rule on this matter if it wishes to do so, but in the absence of such a rule, I don't think there is a better or more expedient way.

[Wright Stuff]

Thank you so much, Mr. Martin. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/4/2023 at 11:09 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree with Mr. Martin.

"45:52    In roll-call voting, a record of how each member voted, as well as the result of the vote, is entered in full in the journal or minutes. If those responding to the roll call do not total a sufficient number to constitute a quorum, the chair must direct the secretary to enter the names of enough members who are present but not voting to reflect the attendance of a quorum during the vote."

This certainly constitutes a rule of order which will require a two-thirds vote for its suspension. 

I don't disagree, but at the risk of splitting hairs, let us suppose that the secretary and the chair acted properly and recorded all the necessary information, so no suspension is required; now the minutes have come up for approval.

41:10 says, in relevant part:

…. Corrections, when proposed, are usually handled by unanimous consent (4:58–63), but if any member objects to a proposed correction—which is, in effect, a subsidiary motion to Amend—the usual rules governing consideration of amendments to a main motion are applicable (see 12).

And in 12:7(7) we find:

Requires a majority vote, regardless of the vote required to adopt the question to be amended. This is true even in cases where adoption of the amendment would result in changing the vote required to adopt the question being amended, as from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote or vice versa….

So a correction offered, essentially as an amendment to the draft minutes, seems to require only a majority vote, even though it might change the vote required to adopt the minutes to two-thirds.  This is considerably complicated by the fact that said vote never occurs; the minutes are simply declared approved.

As I said, I'd oppose any attempt to strike the names of a roll-call vote if I were a member, but the rules aren't as crystal clear as they might be.

 

 

[J. J.]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:19 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

Yes, I think that, particularly in this instance, the rule that the minutes must contain a record of how each member voted when a roll-call vote has been taken is a rule that can be suspended. 

I agree in this case as has been described, so far.

However, there may be certain cases where a right may be created for those outside the assembly to know how the members have voted.  IMO, such a right could not be suspended.  I am trying not to give a global answer.