Recording Members Votes in Minutes

[Guest D Dice]

I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question. However, my interpretation of Robert's Rules appears to differ than that of my counterparts. I was recently elected as Secretary of a club. Our By-laws do not cover this issue but do default to Robert's Rules. There are 15 members on the Board that are elected by the membership of approximately 150. The membership meeting is twice a year while the Board meets one a month. During the course of the monthly Board meetings there are obviously motions made. The Chair calls votes on these motions by asking for yeas and neas. No individual names are called - such as a roll call. My question is two fold. Do the name of the motioner and seconedg get recorded in the minutes? And, do the names of the Board members voting for and against also get recorded in the minutes? My conclusion is that this informal method of calling for yeas and neas is considered a roll call vote that therefore names are subject to be listed in the minutes. However, some of my couterparts disagree. I reviewed Chapter XIII in the Newly revised version and beleive it supports my position. I would like to know if this is a grey area, or I am wrong, or I am correct. Any help would be appreciated.

[George Mervosh]

1) The maker only

2) Your conclusion is not correct. Unless the roll is truly called, how each member voted is not recorded.

[hmtcastle]

My conclusion is that this informal method of calling for yeas and neas is considered a roll call vote that therefore names are subject to be listed in the minutes. . . . I reviewed Chapter XIII in the Newly revised version and beleive it supports my position.

Perhaps you could cite the specific lines which you think support your incorrect position.

[Guest D. Dice]

1) The maker only

2) Your conclusion is not correct. Unless the roll is truly called, how each member voted is not recorded.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you for your prompt response. Based on that response I have another question. Is the Chair properly performing the vote by calling for yeas and neas without specifically calling a roll call. The voting methods of Newly Revised RR at P. 387 Chapter XIII Section §44 begining at page 387 do not seem to allow for votes to be so unofficial. Is this an acceptable method?

[hmtcastle]

Thank you for your prompt response. Based on that response I have another question. Is the Chair properly performing the vote by calling for yeas and neas without specifically calling a roll call. The voting methods of Newly Revised RR at P. 387 Chapter XIII Section §44 begining at page 387 do not seem to allow for votes to be so unofficial. Is this an acceptable method?

Calling for the yeas and nays is the usual method of voting for most ordinary motions. There's nothing "unofficial" about it.

A roll-call vote is rarely appropriate (and can not be ordered by the chair; it's up to the assembly).

[Dan Honemann]

Calling for the yeas and nays is the usual method of voting for most ordinary motions. There's nothing "unofficial" about it.

A roll-call vote is rarely appropriate (and can not be ordered by the chair; it's up to the assembly).

Except that taking a vote by yeas and nays is taking a vote by roll call (p. 405, l. 13-14).

[hmtcastle]

Except that taking a vote by yeas and nays is taking a vote by roll call (p. 405, l. 13-14).

Well, that's embarrassing, isn't it.

Tripped up by that darn nomenclature again. I'm inclined to think that the original poster was referring to the chair saying, "All in favor, say "aye", etc. I guess that's not a vote by yeas and nays.

[Guest D. Dice]

Except that taking a vote by yeas and nays is taking a vote by roll call (p. 405, l. 13-14).

[Guest D. Dice]

Except that taking a vote by yeas and nays is taking a vote by roll call (p. 405, l. 13-14).

[Guest D. Dice]

So, now if I am reading all of this correctly. RONR page 405 at 15 confirms that the manner in which the chair is calling for yeas and nays, while not individually, is considered a roll call vote. And as such the individual names and the manner in which they voted are entered into the minutes. Correct?

[George Mervosh]

So, now if I am reading all of this correctly. RONR page 405 at 15 confirms that the manner in which the chair is calling for yeas and nays, while not individually, is considered a roll call vote. And as such the individual names and the manner in which they voted are entered into the minutes. Correct?

No.

You're using terminology from a roll call vote, as Dan Honemann notes, but unless you're calling the roll it's not a roll call vote.

[hmtcastle]

So, now if I am reading all of this correctly. RONR page 405 at 15 confirms that the manner in which the chair is calling for yeas and nays, while not individually, is considered a roll call vote. And as such the individual names and the manner in which they voted are entered into the minutes. Correct?

As I now understand it, the term "vote by yeas and nays" is another term for a roll-call vote. (Perhaps Mr. Honemann can explain why.) But asking all in favor to say "aye", then all opposed to say, "nay" is not "a vote by yeas and nays" (go figure). But it's perfectly legitimate and, as noted, is the usual voting method. No individual voter's names are recorded.

[Dan Honemann]

So, now if I am reading all of this correctly. RONR page 405 at 15 confirms that the manner in which the chair is calling for yeas and nays, while not individually, is considered a roll call vote. And as such the individual names and the manner in which they voted are entered into the minutes. Correct?

No, it means that if the chair is not conducting a roll-call vote as set forth on pages 405-408, no roll-call vote is being taken, no matter what he calls it.

[Guest D. Dice]

No, it means that if the chair is not conducting a roll-call vote as set forth on pages 405-408, no roll-call vote is being taken, no matter what he calls it.

[Guest D. Dice]

Ok. So the manner in which we are voting is not considered a roll call vote and only the person that made the motion is put in the minutes with just a count of the votes for and against. No specific names with the exception of the person who made the motion are listed. Is that correct?

And again I apologize for being ignorant on this issue. I think I understand law books better than RONR.

[Dan Honemann]

Ok. So the manner in which we are voting is not considered a roll call vote and only the person that made the motion is put in the minutes with just a count of the votes for and against. No specific names with the exception of the person who made the motion are listed. Is that correct?

And again I apologize for being ignorant on this issue. I think I understand law books better than RONR.

Well, it's not at all clear to me exactly what is happening when your chair takes a vote, but I think you have it right.

[hmtcastle]

with just a count of the votes for and against.

Not necessarily with a count, just whether the motion was adopted or lost.

[Trina]

Ok. So the manner in which we are voting is not considered a roll call vote and only the person that made the motion is put in the minutes with just a count of the votes for and against. No specific names with the exception of the person who made the motion are listed. Is that correct?

And again I apologize for being ignorant on this issue. I think I understand law books better than RONR.

Still not quite. In the case of a voice vote, the vote is not counted. You just record whether the motion was adopted or lost.

[Guest D. Dice]

To all. Thank you for the support. This is a wonderful website and I really do not know where I would have gone to get these answers. Thank you.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you for your prompt response. Based on that response I have another question. Is the Chair properly performing the vote by calling for yeas and neas without specifically calling a roll call. The voting methods of Newly Revised RR at P. 387 Chapter XIII Section §44 begining at page 387 do not seem to allow for votes to be so unofficial. Is this an acceptable method?

Yeah, the terminology problem is getting us confused.

What you're calling "yeas and nays" is actually what is properly referred to as a "voice vote". The term "yeas and nays" is an old-timey term for a roll call vote, where each name is called and the voter answers Yea or Nay. This term is still used in Congress--a notoriously old-timey group. Except that in the House they use an electronic vote counter, not an actual roll call, but it always means the names of each voter, and their vote, are recorded.

Now that we have the terms straight:

On a voice vote, there is no counting, and no way (in theory) to know who voted how, unless you have very sharp eyes and ears and a photographic (cinematic?) memory, so naturally neither of these is recorded in the minutes--just whether it passed or not.

If the votes are counted, such as a counted rising vote, or a counted show of hands, etc., then the number of Yes and No votes are recorded, because they are known.

If an actual roll call vote, name by name, is done, then the names and votes are recorded.

In general, the minutes reflect what actually happened.

[Gary c Tesser]

In the 1990's or so, I chaired some meetings of the New York Science-Fiction Society, and a vote came up. The long-standing secretary was accustomed to getting a count, which was not unreasonable, since the vote count was close more often than not, and there were rarely more than a couple dozen members in the room (as well sometimes, say, as Jack Chalker and David Gerrold*); and he routinely put it in the minutes, with what often seemed, frustratingly, like inarguably compelling and cogent reasons.

For example, Stuart -- of course not his real name, for legal reasons, but between us of course it really is -- threw a roaring fit (his favorite kind) asserting that Alan had attended only two of the required 3 meetings a year, so he had lost his membership. Well, Mark thumbed through his minutes -- you and I would think they more resemble thrilling adventure stories, but he drafted them as our minutes, and we duly approved them so -- and he came up with an instance, at a meeting beyond the two that Stuart conceded Alan had attended, at which a vote was recorded as some number in favor vs. two against -- and some of us did remember that Alan was one of the two voting against. Thus proving that Alan had indeed been at that third meeting of the year -- and, further, that it could occasionally be critical to have the totals of every vote recorded in the minutes.

My objections that it would be even better to videotape every moment of every meeting, and that the secretary then describe it all in his breathtaking vivid detail for the minutes, were unavailing.

I occasionally won, though. Since the number of voters there was small, I got to asking for a show of hands -- the established custom -- but without counting them, and when I announced the result, and when the secretary asked for the totals for the record, I told him, "Some to fewer."

(But nothing ever wins.)

____________

* O Great Steaming Cobnuts, I have name-dropped!

[Edited to plonk out a grammattical error. And to shorten a couple of sentences. Shovelling against the tide, I know; but what's a heaven for?]

[hmtcastle]

In the 1990's or so, I chaired some meetings of the New York Science-Fiction Society . . .

Is the hyphen meant to distinguish that organization from the non-hyphenated one, or can we expect to see you at LunaCon 2011?

[Gary c Tesser]

Is the hyphen meant to distinguish that organization from the non-hyphenated one, or can we expect to see you at LunaCon 2011?

Mr. Mountcastle, I am one of a conceded minority who spell (er, "spells"?) "science-fiction" with the hyphen (but I'm not religious about it). I haven't bothered with a few recent Lunacons -- which I have attended, with some exceptions, since 1970 -- but if you say you'll be there, I promise you I'll be there. Buy you whatever you want in the bar, unless it's breathing.

[N. B. Joke about breathing probably derivative, but I can't remember the source. But I'm just denying original thought on it.]

[Gary c Tesser]

... And that offer to Mr Mt stands for pretty much everyone here. -- unless and until (should that be "or until"? Help, Dr Seabold, of the Dept. of Logic & Set Theory!) I run out of money. Maybe not then. Someone might shout "Drinks are on the house!" Then I'll be off the hook. Unless the house decides that "on the house" really means on me. In which case the hook will be least of my worries.

... You think I can come up with an RONR citation for this?