Recording Dissenting Vote Reasons in Minutes

I'm almost positive that I read that Robert's Rules permits those who vote "no" on an agenda item may request to have their reason recorded in the minutes. Is this true?

What is a good online source where I read RRNR, 11th ed.?

As has been discussed many times, the minutes IMO are supposed to record the actions taken by the Board in the operations of the property period.
They are not required to record every statement and comment made word for word during meetings. Nor are they used to record why or how some voted in favor of the measure or perhaps against the motiion made. If so then IMO they are being used to serve the interests of indiviual Board members rather than the Board as a whole.

And will those who voted in favor be given the opportunity to have their thoughts also included? Sounds to me like a problem.

I think you might need to go back and reread the OP in which it was asked if a member who voted NO can have their reason recorded in the minutes. NOT who voted and how they voted. IMO two different things completly. YES certainly the votes taken need to be recorded but the minutes do NOT need to detail the thought process used to reach each members vote.

So while you may disagree it appears you misunderstood the OP's question to begin with.

Carol,

Roberts Rules DOES state that no member may be compelled to explain his or her vote, whether affirmative or negative.

A member may REQUEST that the reasons for his vote be entered into the minutes, but there is no requirement to do so and the secretary is not obligated to enter such reasons (and actually shouldn't) unless the board votes to include them.

It's unlikely you will find an official copy of the latest edition of Roberts Rules online since it is a copyrighted publication. However, almost every public library has a copy in its reference section, and outdated editions may possibly circulate. (Yes, even today, libraries containing printed books and publications can still be useful.) You can also get answers to questions concerning interpretations of Roberts Rules from their official website

http://www.robertsrules.com/interpretations.html

Questions are often answered by registered professional parliamentarians; sometimes by one of the editors of RONR himself.

Bruce:

Yes, I admit I wasn't thinking of Roberts Rules of order, but rather on legal issues and legal liability.

If I knew that the board was venturing into something illegal, I would not only want my vote recorded, but also the reason. I would ask for the reason to be recorded and if it wasn't recorded, I would want it noted before the board approved the minutes and write a written request to that effect.

It the board was then taken to court and found personally liable, then I would have written proof that I objected and would be able to defend myself against any monetary damage claims.

In the case of elections in a larger community where you might not be able to know everyone, such voting records would help you decide how to vote and for whom. Board members should not be secretive about voting.

In California, the Davis-Stirling Act is based upon the Brown Act. The Brown Act is for public organizations such as school boards. I've seen the minutes of a school board and believe these offer a good example of how HOA minutes should look. Both are sunshine laws. The goal for HOAs should be like that of public institutions, transparency to members.

Woo-hoo for Washington. Great law IMO. In our case, our president had no back-bone and let the treasurer do all the talking and that got them into enough trouble and is heading them toward more.

Would love to hear if other states have such a law.

Carol.

As I stated in an earlier post, the site Tim mentioned contains the full text of the 4th edition, published in 1915, for which the copyright has expired.

Roberts Rules is a copyrighted publication, so you are not likely to find the 11th edition online. However, you might try your local public library. Many libraries have a copy of the latest edition of Roberts in their reference sections. Older editions may circulate.

In our case, the board kept saying we were troublemakers, even when we were on the board. Since we wanted to make it clear it wasn't because we were against the concept, but the legality or the manner in which the board was bypassing the law, I think more than a simple nay is warranted.

For example, I wouldn't want people to think I voted against a playground because I didn't have children or they meant to ban dogs from that area, but because the board neglected to get an inspector, figure out the cost of an initial inspection and the annual follow up inspections and re-surface the area to conform with California state requirements...I'd like that reason to be clearly stated and in writing before a child is injured and the HOA sued.

Some boards are that crazy.