Dissent vote in minutes

[Guest C J Mans]

When a Director votes no to a motion, is it possible for that Director to have the written reasons for his written reflected in the minutes?

[Guest C J Mans]

When a Director votes no to a motion, is it possible for that Director to have the written reasons for his written reflected in the minutes?

When a Director votes no to a motion and the motion carries, is it possible for that Director to have the written reasons for his dissent reflected in the minutes?

[jstackpo]

Yes, if the other Directors - majority vote - agree to let him.

[Gary Novosielski]

When a Director votes no to a motion and the motion carries, is it possible for that Director to have the written reasons for his dissent reflected in the minutes?

That would not be appropriate.

But it would not be prohibited if a majority of the body voted to allow it.

It would, however, continue to be inappropriate. They should vote No.

[J. J.]

That would not be appropriate.

But it would not be prohibited if a majority of the body voted to allow it.

It would, however, continue to be inappropriate. They should vote No.

I think the judgment for the appropriateness rests with the majority.

[hmtcastle]

When a Director votes no to a motion, is it possible for that Director to have the written reasons for his written reflected in the minutes?

You might find this recent discussion helpful.

[George Mervosh]

You might find this recent discussion helpful.

Rob Elsman's stubborn, yet very consistent reply, or the other responses?

[hmtcastle]

Rob Elsman's stubborn, yet very consistent reply, or the other responses?

As with many topics, there's no reason to go beyond the first reply.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think the judgment for the appropriateness rests with the majority.

"Stupid majority!" --Homer Simpson

[J. J.]

"Stupid majority!" --Homer Simpson

To paraphrase something I've said earlier: The majority, when making the decision that is within the control of the majority, is right, no matter how wrong that majority is.

[Rob Elsman]

Rob Elsman's stubborn, yet very consistent reply, or the other responses?

Yes, his.

A request by an individual member on the losing side of a question to have his vote entered on the minutes is dilatory and out of order. It serves no legitimate parliamentary purpose. The minutes are the journal of the assembly's proceedings, not the personal journal of an individual member. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 451-454.

[Rob Elsman]

So you're seconding your own motion?

My decrees do not require a second.

[J. J.]

Yes, his.

A request by an individual member on the losing side of a question to have his vote entered on the minutes is dilatory and out of order. It serves no legitimate parliamentary purpose. The minutes are the journal of the assembly's proceedings, not the personal journal of an individual member. RONR (10th ed.), pp. 451-454.

It obviously does serve a legitimate purpose, noting how the member voted. And since the assembly's permission is required it cannot be "the personal journal of an individual member."

As for the claim of the motion being dilatory, it cannot possibly be if the assembly chooses to entertain it.

[Rob Elsman]

It obviously does serve a legitimate purpose, noting how the member voted. And since the assembly's permission is required it cannot be "the personal journal of an individual member."

As for the claim of the motion being dilatory, it cannot possibly be if the assembly chooses to entertain it.

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.

[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)?"

If the assembly, by majority vote, can permit the recording of how all members voted, can't that same majority permit the recording of how just some, or one, of the members have voted?

[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)?"

If the assembly, by majority vote, can permit the recording of how all members voted, can't that same majority permit the recording of how just some, or one, of the members have voted?

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.]

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 then why would you claim that the majority could not do something less, permitting only some votes to be included in the minutes, as per p. 572 #5.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A request by an individual member on the losing side of a question to have his vote entered on the minutes is dilatory and out of order.

It serves no legitimate parliamentary purpose.

This is dead wrong.

In several states, in their corporations code for their corporations, one of the legal ways a director shall have his abstention recorded or have his negative vote recorded (for reasons of liability) is to have the MINUTES INCLUDE SUCH DATA.

Thus, in many states in the U.S., there is indeed a "legitimate parliamentary purpose".

You may cite RONR as not recognizing such a purpose.

But it is wrong to assume that, therefore, it is not legitimate, and it serves no purpose.

It is legitimate, and does serve a purpose, for thousands of organization. -- Even as it may be illegitimate, and may be purposless, for some organizations.