minutes

[Guest Donald Dodds]

There was a vote on a motion. I voted no to the motion and wanted my reason given in the minutes as to why. I have been told that can not be entered into the minutes. Is that the case.

[hmtcastle]

There was a vote on a motion. I voted no to the motion and wanted my reason given in the minutes as to why. I have been told that can not be entered into the minutes. Is that the case.

Not exactly. It's up to the assembly (the members present) to decide what goes into the minutes. That said, your request should probably be declined.

In fact, unless it was a roll-call vote, the fact that you voted no wouldn't even be recorded, let alone your reasons. And, unless a counted vote was ordered (or required), the fact that anyone voted no wouldn't be recorded if the motion was adopted.

[Rob Elsman]

There was a vote on a motion. I voted no to the motion and wanted my reason given in the minutes as to why. I have been told that can not be entered into the minutes. Is that the case.

Such a request is dilatory and serves no legitimate parliamentary purpose. The minutes are the journal of the assembly's proceedings, not the personal journal of an individual member.

[David A Foulkes]

At best, you might just tell everyone why you voted no, but not during the meeting, and especially not during voting. "A member has no right to 'explain his vote' during voting, which would be the same as debate at such a time." (RONR 10th Ed, p. 395 l. 5-7, emphasis added)

[Gary Novosielski]

There was a vote on a motion. I voted no to the motion and wanted my reason given in the minutes as to why. I have been told that can not be entered into the minutes. Is that the case.

Essentially, yes.

It would technically be possible for the body to vote to include all sorts of extraneous material in the minutes, but it would also be entirely inappropriate.

[hmtcastle]

At best, you might just tell everyone why you voted no, but not during the meeting . . .

Although there's no reason why, during debate, a member can't explain why he intends to vote against adopting the motion and why others should do the same.

[David A Foulkes]

Although there's no reason why, during debate, a member can't explain why he intends to vote against adopting the motion and why others should do the same.

Yes, although I was referring to the present case for which the vote is concluded. In the future, the debate phase would be the time to express those concerns, although still not expecting them to be entered into the minutes.

[Gary Novosielski]

Although there's no reason why, during debate, a member can't explain why he intends to vote against adopting the motion and why others should do the same.

And every reason why he should. That's exactly the time to do so, during debate. In fact it's the only time when it might do any good, and therefore the only time where it actually matters.

While there may be instances where someone would care how you voted (and that's what Roll-call votes are for) it is never the case that anyone will ever care in the least bit why you voted the way you did.

They will assume that if you voted their way it is because you are a person of great intellect and foresight, and if not, it is because you are an idiot.

[J. J.]

Such a request is dilatory and serves no legitimate parliamentary purpose.

I think the bolded part of the statement false on its face. It clearly does serve a purpose, to permit an individual member to exercise a privilege.

As to the claim of being dilatory, it is solely up to the majority to decide.

The minutes are the journal of the assembly's proceedings, not the personal journal of an individual member.

And if the assembly wishes to record that?

[Rob Elsman]

I think the bolded part of the statement false on its face. It clearly does serve a purpose, to permit an individual member to exercise a privilege.

As to the claim of being dilatory, it is solely up to the majority to decide.

And if the assembly wishes to record that?

You might want to reread RONR (10th ed.), pp. 451-454.

[J. J.]

You might want to reread RONR (10th ed.), pp. 451-454.

I have, but you might wish to look at pp. 287-88, or even p. 216 ff.

[Rob Elsman]

I have, but you might wish to look at pp. 287-88, or even p. 216 ff.

When certain things of a class are authorized explicitly, other things of the same class are thereby excluded. When the rules pertaining to the form and content of the minutes explicitly enumerate what things are, or may be, included in the minutes, then other things are thereby excluded. A majority vote on a motion for a Miscellaneous Privilege is insufficient to suspend these rules.

[hmtcastle]

When the rules pertaining to the form and content of the minutes explicitly enumerate what things are, or may be, included in the minutes, then other things are thereby excluded.

You might be conflating rules with suggestions, form with content, and what things are with what they may be.

But I've come to find your black-and-white view of our colorful world endearing (or at least predictable).

[J. J.]

When certain things of a class are authorized explicitly, other things of the same class are thereby excluded. When the rules pertaining to the form and content of the minutes explicitly enumerate what things are, or may be, included in the minutes, then other things are thereby excluded. A majority vote on a motion for a Miscellaneous Privilege is insufficient to suspend these rules.

And, what do you claim excludes it, considering that a record of how everyone votes can be included in the minutes, especially considering "A provision granding certain privileges carries with it a part of the privilege... (p. 572 #5)?"

[Rob Elsman]

You might be conflating rules with suggestions, form with content, and what things are with what they may be.

But I've come to find your black-and-white view of our colorful world endearing (or at least predictable).

In my opinion, the rules pertaining to the content of the minutes given in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 451-454, are rules of order under the definition of p. 15, ll. 5-7, since they pertain to the duties of the secretary in connection with the transaction of business in meetings. They are not to be understood as "paternal advice".

[Rob Elsman]

And, what do you claim excludes it, considering that a record of how everyone votes can be included in the minutes, especially considering "A provision granding certain privileges carries with it a part of the privilege... (p. 572 #5)?"

You are correct to point out that a member can make a Motion Related to Methods of Voting to take a vote by roll call if such a method of voting serves some legitimate parliamentary purpose. Where a roll call vote is appropriate, it is this parliamentary action that I would recommend.

[J. J.]

Rob, if there was a rule of order saying that debate on a debatable main motion was limited to speaking twice for ten minutes, couldn't the membership decide NOT to speak for that amount of time, but for a lesser amount of time? Would you claim that because the assembly didn't fully exercise the maximum abount of effort it could, that it violated the rules?

In my opinion, the rules pertaining to the content of the minutes given in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 451-454, are rules of order under the definition of p. 15, ll. 5-7, since they pertain to the duties of the secretary in connection with the transaction of business in meetings. They are not to be understood as "paternal advice".

Well, let;s assume that is a rule of order. Doesn't that same rule of order indicate that the assembly may enter things into the minutes, even if those things were not adopted (p. 454)? Doesn't the same rule indicate that the majority can cause how all members voted to be entered into the minutes? Isn't this just a lesser application of those rules, as permitted by p. 572, #5?

[J. J.]

You are correct to point out that a member can make a Motion Related to Methods of Voting to take a vote by roll call if such a method of voting serves some legitimate parliamentary purpose. Where a roll call vote is appropriate, it is this parliamentary action that I would recommend.

And why would claim it was out of order to permit only one member to record his vote as per p. 572, #5?

[Rob Elsman]

Rob, if there was a rule of order saying that debate on a debatable main motion was limited to speaking twice for ten minutes, couldn't the membership decide NOT to speak for that amount of time, but for a lesser amount of time? Would you claim that because the assembly didn't fully exercise the maximum abount of effort it could, that it violated the rules?

Well, let;s assume that is a rule of order. Doesn't that same rule of order indicate that the assembly may enter things into the minutes, even if those things were not adopted (p. 454)? Doesn't the same rule indicate that the majority can cause how all members voted to be entered into the minutes? Isn't this just a lesser application of those rules, as permitted by p. 572, #5?

There is a rule of order on p. 407, ll. 18-20, that each member's vote is entered on the minutes when the vote is by roll call. There is no rule of order that an individual member's vote is entered on the minutes when the vote is by voice vote, show of hands, rising vote, etc.

[J. J.]

There is a rule of order on p. 407, ll. 18-20, that each member's vote is entered on the minutes when the vote is by roll call. There is no rule of order that an individual member's vote is entered on the minutes when the vote is by voice vote, show of hands, rising vote, etc.

The can, however, if the minute requirements are a rule of order, as you've claimed, the assembly can do something less. The assembly could, by majority vote, order only how certain members voted be recorded in the minutes, but that is up to the majority. That rule limits anything greater, but not something lesser, as per p. 572, #6. Clearly, only recording the vote of one member in the minutes is something "less than the limitation" of recording how all members voted.

[Rob Elsman]

The can, however, if the minute requirements are a rule of order, as you've claimed, the assembly can do something less. The assembly could, by majority vote, order only how certain members voted be recorded in the minutes, but that is up to the majority. That rule limits anything greater, but not something lesser, as per p. 572, #6. Clearly, only recording the vote of one member in the minutes is something "less than the limitation" of recording how all members voted.

A majority vote is insufficient to suspend a rule of order.

[J. J.]

A majority vote is insufficient to suspend a rule of order.

There is no suspension of rules involved. There is only not reaching the limitation set by the rule.

It is like claiming that someone must exhaust his debate time or he has to continue speaking for the full ten minutes unless the rules are suspended. Are you claiming that?

[Rob Elsman]

There is no suspension of rules involved. There is only not reaching the limitation set by the rule.

It is like claiming that someone must exhaust his debate time or he has to continue speaking for the full ten minutes unless the rules are suspended. Are you claiming that?

Nope. The rule on p. 407 is clear. Each member's vote is recorded in the minutes.

[J. J.]

Nope. The rule on p. 407 is clear. Each member's vote is recorded in the minutes.

Nope, take a look at p. 572 #6: "A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater that what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are evidently not improper." Emphasis added.

The majority can order how all members voted to be included in the minutes, therefor the majority can order how some members voted to be included in the minutes, or how one member voted to be included in the minutes. The rule is still in force and has not been suspended. The majority just chooses to do something "less than the limitation." The majority may do so, under the existing rules.

[Josh Martin]

While there may be instances where someone would care how you voted (and that's what Roll-call votes are for) it is never the case that anyone will ever care in the least bit why you voted the way you did.

I don't think I would go that far.