Reporting and recording a vote

[Pastor Tim]

We had 34 members present at a recent meeting. A motion was voted upon and received 30 yes votes and 0 no votes.  Four people (for reasons that are not clear--as there was no reason to abstain on this particular vote--chose not to vote.

How should such a vote be reported? 

• "the motion passed 30-0"? 
• Is it fair to report "the motion passed without opposition."

[Joshua Katz]

Unless this was a roll call vote, the minutes should say "Mr. E moved to ... After debate, the motion was adopted."

[Atul Kapur]

On 5/19/2024 at 4:44 PM, Pastor Tim said:

A motion was voted upon and received 30 yes votes and 0 no votes. 

How was the vote taken? There are some circumstances where the 30-0 vote should be recorded in the minutes; specifically:

Quote

 

RONR (12th ed.) 48:5 

2) a) When a count has been ordered, the number of votes on each side is entered, unless the vote was on a motion that would not otherwise be entered in the minutes.
b) When the voting is by ballot, the full tellers’ report (45:37–40) is entered.
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.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/19/2024 at 4:44 PM, Pastor Tim said:

We had 34 members present at a recent meeting. A motion was voted upon and received 30 yes votes and 0 no votes.  Four people (for reasons that are not clear--as there was no reason to abstain on this particular vote--chose not to vote.

How should such a vote be reported? 

• "the motion passed 30-0"? 
• Is it fair to report "the motion passed without opposition."

If a counted vote or a ballot vote was actually ordered, then the count of 30 Yes and 0 No should be recorded in the minutes.  If a roll-call vote was done, the names of all members and how they responded is recorded.  Otherwise, the minutes should merely say that it was adopted.  

Members do not need a "reason" to abstain on any particular vote, and even if they have one, they are not required to reveal it to anyone else.  Abstentions should generally not be called for, counted, or entered in the minutes, since they are not votes.

It would be technically correct to say that the motion was adopted without opposition, or unanimously, but since this is of no particular interest from a parliamentary point of view, there is no reason to say it.

Edited May 19, 2024 at 10:55 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/19/2024 at 5:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Members do not need a "reason" to abstain...

If a member is present at a meeting, he generally has a duty to vote.  To say one does not need a reason to abstain is a little bit misleading.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Pastor Tim said:

Four people (for reasons that are not clear--as there was no reason to abstain on this particular vote--chose not to vote.

To be clear, members are free to abstain for whatever reason they please, so the fact that there is no readily apparent reason to abstain on this particular vote is immaterial.

"Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 45:3

On 5/19/2024 at 3:44 PM, Pastor Tim said:

How should such a vote be reported? 

• "the motion passed 30-0"? 
• Is it fair to report "the motion passed without opposition."

It depends on the manner in which the vote was taken. (I would also note that "adopted" is preferred to "passed.")

If this was a voice vote or an uncounted rising vote (or show of hands vote), then the minutes should simply record "The motion was adopted."

If this was a counted rising vote, the minutes should record the exact count on each side, e.g. "The motion was adopted with 30 votes in the affirmative and 0 votes in the negative."

If this was a ballot vote, the minutes should include the tellers' report in full, which would look like this:

TELLERS' REPORT
Number of votes cast    30
Necessary for adoption (majority)    16
Votes for motion    30
Votes against    0

If this was a roll call vote, the minutes would record, in addition to the count, how each individual member voted, or if they responded "Present," the minutes would reflect that fact.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/19/2024 at 6:15 PM, Rob Elsman said:

If a member is present at a meeting, he generally has a duty to vote.  To say one does not need a reason to abstain is a little bit misleading.

Actually, RONR says he has a duty to vote on matters on which he has an opinion. but he can't be compelled to vote. But it might be more accurate to say that he does not need to state a reason. 

[Rob Elsman]

The text should be understood to mean that the member has an obligation to vote unless there is a weightier reason that excuses him from that duty.  It is not correct to understand the text to mean that the duty may be abandoned for any less weighty reason or no reason at all.  To be clear, the book is pointing out that there is, in fact, an affirmative duty to vote.

There is nothing new or particularly different.  In our everyday lives, we all make frequent judgments about our duties and the reasons we might be excused from performing them in particular instances.  This is different than abandoning our duties for frivolous reasons or no reason at all.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/20/2024 at 7:14 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The text should be understood to mean that the member has an obligation to vote unless there is a weightier reason that excuses him from that duty. 

I don't disagree, as long as we are taking about a question on which the member has an opinion. But if he truly has no opinion, he certainty does not have a duty to somehow arbitrarily make a choice.

[Rob Elsman]

The inability to form a judgment on the question is certainly a weightier reason that excuses the member from the duty to vote.  This certainly does not include a merely frivolous or silly unwillingness to form a judgment.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/20/2024 at 9:08 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The inability to form a judgment on the question is certainly a weightier reason that excuses the member from the duty to vote.  This certainly does not include a merely frivolous or silly unwillingness to form a judgment.

I can agree with that. Of course, since the member does not have t state a reason for abstaining, there is no practical way to enforce the duty (short of a bylaws requirement that members must vote on event issue). One can only hope that the members take the obligation seriously. Personally, I can't imagine why I wouldn't vote on an issue on which I have an opinion. But I can't say that everyone would feel that way.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/20/2024 at 10:20 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I can agree with that. Of course, since the member does not have t state a reason for abstaining, there is no practical way to enforce the duty (short of a bylaws requirement that members must vote on event issue). One can only hope that the members take the obligation seriously. Personally, I can't imagine why I wouldn't vote on an issue on which I have an opinion. But I can't say that everyone would feel that way.

I've known people who felt it unseemly to vote for themselves.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/20/2024 at 9:43 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I've known people who felt it unseemly to vote for themselves.

I don't think I have even known anyone like that, but I have heard of them. Whether that would meet Mr. Elsman's standard, I don't know. But while I disagree that it is "unseemly," if that's how they really feel, then it would meet my standard. 

Edited May 20, 2024 at 10:14 PM by Weldon Merritt
To retract the stricken text.

[Rob Elsman]

During the Victorian and Edwardian era, refraining from voting for oneself was more the rule than the exception.  Voting for oneself was considered an improper expression of sinful pride.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/20/2024 at 1:55 PM, Rob Elsman said:

During the Victorian and Edwardian era, refraining from voting for oneself was more the rule than the exception.  Voting for oneself was considered an improper expression of sinful pride.

So would you agree that this would be "a weightier reason that excuses the member from the duty to vote"? 

[Rob Elsman]

My more modern sense of it is that a member actually has a duty to vote for himself if he has formed a judgment that he is the best person for the office.  People nowadays are very used to having to make what amounts to a sales pitch about themselves and the value that they offer an employer or other organization.  The older notion is quaint, but obsolete.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/20/2024 at 4:45 PM, Rob Elsman said:

My more modern sense of it is that a member actually has a duty to vote for himself if he has formed a judgment that he is the best person for the office.  People nowadays are very used to having to make what amounts to a sales pitch about themselves and the value that they offer an employer or other organization.  The older notion is quaint, but obsolete.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense. If they are willing to accept nomination, they should be willing to vote for themselves. Otherwise, why accept nomination in the first place? So I have changed my mind on this issue.