Making Decisions Without Motions or a Vote
I’ve written previously (most recently last month, but also here, here, here and here) to encourage the use of unanimous or general consent to approve routine or noncontroversial business without a vote and even, where appropriate, without moving a motion.
Some readers have asked for more detail on how this actually works (and specifically, what the chair should say); whether the actions are ‘as official’ as formally moving a motion and taking a vote; how to record such decisions in the minutes; and how to deal with pushback from members who express concerns about bypassing ‘proper procedure’.
I know it can be disconcerting for some members to attend what they regard as a formal decision-making meeting, only to witness decisions being made informally, with the chair taking procedural shortcuts. This can be a challenge to everything we’ve been taught, i.e., when a group makes a decision, there must be a motion that is moved, seconded, stated by the chair, discussed, and voted on; skipping these steps is viewed as procedurally sloppy, undemocratic, even autocratic!
So let’s start with what Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised has to say on the matter (in 4:58):
‘In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business or on questions of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of unanimous consent … [This method] can be used either to adopt a motion without the steps of stating the question and putting the motion to a formal vote, or it can be used to take action without even the formality of a motion’.
Procedural shortcuts, in other words, are quite legitimate when making routine decisions or on questions that are noncontroversial and unlikely to generate divisive or contentious debate.
How Unanimous Consent Is Used
As to how it actually works and what the chair should say, Robert states (in 4:59) that the chair must first ‘obtain unanimous consent’, which he or she does by stating one of the following phrases:
· ‘If there is no objection …’ [and then stating the action to be taken]; or
· ‘Without objection . . .’ [stating the action to be taken]; or
· ‘Is there any objection to . . .’ [taking the following action?].
My personal preference is the third option. Asking ‘Is there any objection’ is more explicit and makes it clear to members that they need to respond if they have an objection.
After making one of these statements, the chair ‘then pauses, and if no member calls out “I object” [or “objection”], the chair announces that “Since there is no objection . . .”, [completing the sentence by stating the action decided upon]’(see 4:59, emphasis added).
Three important points to stress:
1. The chair needs to pause long enough to provide a reasonable amount of time for a member to object. Less time is required in a small board or committee where everyone is present in person than in a larger meeting or a hybrid/virtual event, where it may take longer for members to unmute themselves or otherwise get the chair’s attention. (It isn’t necessary to be recognized by the chair in order to object, but you need to make your objection known, usually by calling it out, although possibly by also standing or raising your hand.)
2. Even after the chair announces that there has been no objection, Robert states (also in 4:59) that ‘if an objection is made with reasonable promptness’, the chair must then disregard his or her announcement and ‘proceed to state the question in the usual manner’ (i.e., subject to discussion and vote).
3. If there is no objection from the members, the chair still needs to state clearly what action will be taken, so all members understand exactly what has been decided and the secretary knows what decision to record in the minutes.
Let’s take as an example the following scenario for processing the adoption of a meeting agenda.
Chair: ‘The first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Are there any amendments to the agenda?’ [Pause] ‘Hearing none, is there any objection to adopting the agenda as circulated?’ [Pause] ‘There being no objection, I declare the agenda adopted as circulated.’
The chair thus avoids having to call for someone to move a motion to approve the agenda (‘Is there a motion to approve the agenda?’), which someone else would have to second (‘Is there a seconder?’). The chair then would call for discussion of the motion (‘Is there any discussion?’ or ‘Are you ready for the question?’); there would be no discussion. The chair would then restate the motion (‘The motion is to approve the agenda as circulated’ and call for the vote: ‘All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.’) This is called, quite appropriately, going through the motions, but to what end? It is simply following form for form’s sake.
An even leaner variation might look like this:
Chair: ‘The first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Is there any objection to adopting the agenda as circulated?’ [Pause] ‘There being no objection, I declare the agenda adopted as circulated.’
In both options, the chair asks if there is any objection to approving the agenda; in the first, there is a call for amendments to the agenda and then a call for any objections to approval. In the second option, the chair eliminates the call for amendments, only asking for objections to approving the agenda as circulated, on the assumption that if someone does have a proposed change to the agenda, he or she would object to approval, and then suggest the change. After pausing and hearing no objection, the chair concludes, in both cases, by stating clearly what action will be taken, namely, that the agenda is adopted as circulated.
What happens if there is an objection? It might look like this:
Chair: ‘The first item of business is the approval of the agenda. Is there any objection to adopting the agenda as circulated?’ [Pause]
Member A: ‘I have an amendment’ (or: ‘Objection; I have an amendment’).
Chair: ‘Please state your amendment.’
Member A: ‘I have an update on the planning underway for the annual lecture series. Can this be added as the first item under New Business?’
Chair: ‘If there is no objection, we will add ‘Update on Annual Lecture Series’ as the first item under New Business.’ [Pause] ‘Are there any other amendments to the agenda? Without objection, the agenda is approved as amended.’
Let’s say, however, that another member has a second amendment, but someone objects.
Chair: ‘If there is no objection, we will add ‘Update on Annual Lecture Series’ as the first item under New Business.’ [Pause] ‘Are there any other amendments to the agenda?’
Member B: ‘Yes, I have one. Can we re-arrange the agenda so we consider the Education Committee report before the Finance Committee report?’
Chair: ‘The proposal is to move the Education Committee report up on the agenda to immediately before the Finance Committee report. Is there any objection?’ [Pause]
Get Michael Mouritsen | RP’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Treasurer: ‘Yes, I object.’
Chair: ‘There is not unanimous consent. The motion, therefore, moved by Member B, is to amend the agenda by moving the Education Committee report to immediately before the Finance Committee report. Is there a second?’ [Member C signals yes.] ‘The Chair recognizes Member B to speak to the amendment.’
Notice a couple of things here:
1. The Treasurer, in objecting and thereby denying unanimous consent, is not required (and should not be permitted by the chair) to provide at that point a reason for the objection. It is not necessary to explain why you are objecting.
2. As soon as there is an objection, the chair treats the proposal made by Member B as a motion (to amend the agenda), asks for a seconder, and recognizes the mover, Member B, to speak first. What was initially an informal proposal has now become a formal amendment and is processed in the ‘normal’ way, subject to discussion and vote. The Treasurer will have an opportunity during the discussion to explain why the sequence in committee reports should remain unchanged, and ultimately the members will decide by vote.
Even if an objection is made to changing the agenda, and it has to be settled by a vote on a particular amendment, the chair can still try to use unanimous consent to approve the agenda after the amendment has been dealt with. Eagle-eyed readers may recall from my previous blog on approving agendas that a change in the order of business, such as changing the sequence of committee reports, requires a two-thirds vote (for regular meetings occurring on at least a quarterly basis). In such a case, the amendment to the agenda would only require a majority vote, although the vote on approving the amended agenda (incorporating the change, if the amendment is approved) would need two-thirds. As Robert states, however, even actions requiring a two-thirds vote ‘can, in principle, also be taken by unanimous consent’ (4:63). If a matter has been approved by unanimous consent it has, of course, exceeded the threshold of two thirds.
What if a motion is formally moved and seconded, but the chair senses that there is likely no opposition to it? Let’s revisit the first scenario.
Chair: ‘The first item of business is the approval of the agenda.’ [Member A immediately raises hand] ‘The Chair recognizes Member A.’
Member A: ‘I move that the agenda be approved as circulated.’
Member B: [Calls out] ‘Second.’
Chair: ‘Thank you. It has been moved and seconded that the agenda be approved as circulated. Is there any objection?’ [Pause] ‘There being no objection, I declare the agenda approved as circulated.’
Even though a motion to approve the agenda has been moved and seconded, the chair can still seek unanimous consent for approval, bypassing the need for a discussion and vote. (And a reminder that the member seconding a motion does not need to seek recognition from the chair, but can simply call it out.)
Finally, what if there is no motion on the floor, but it is clear that the members want to make a decision? A recent example from my own experience is a good illustration of how a chair can assume a motion and obtain consent. At this meeting (an AGM), the board announced that it had signed a Memorandum of Agreement with another association that would enable members of both organizations to share certain benefits. The members at the AGM were quite pleased with this news, and a few members indicated that they would like to endorse the board’s decision, even though it was clearly within the board’s authority to sign the agreement (a point that one member noted). Without missing a beat, the chair asked ‘Would members like to endorse the board’s decision?’ A number of heads nodded assent. Without waiting for a mover, the chair took the following action.
Chair: ‘The motion is that the AGM endorse the board’s signing of the Memorandum of Agreement with [name of the association]. Is there any objection?’ [Pause] ‘The motion is adopted.’
The chair could also have invited someone to move a motion, but in this case it wasn’t difficult to see that there was broad support for a motion of endorsement, even from those who had jurisdictional concerns. The chair’s action also had the virtue of focussing any further debate, should there be any, on a specific proposal, avoiding what was in danger of becoming a rambling discussion in the absence of a motion on the floor. If any members wanted to discuss the motion, they could have objected to unanimous consent, in which case the chair would have invited discussion and then held a vote.
And no, the chair did not violate her duty of neutrality in assuming the motion. She was fulfilling her responsibility ‘to expedite business in every way compatible with the rights of members’ (47:7[7]).
Rationale for Unanimous Consent
One of the arguments often made against using unanimous consent in this way is that it violates democratic norms and potentially stifles discussion. In permitting this procedure, however, Robert notes that it ‘is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect’ (4:58; emphasis added). In other words, if there is no objection to taking a certain action, it means that members are content to do so; they consent to do so, which means that, in this particular instance, they have voluntarily agreed not to exercise their rights (to move motions, speak and vote). It is not a case of infringement but, rather, restraint; the members have freely chosen not to object.
Another argument is that the term ‘unanimous consent’ is misleading, inasmuch as it is not the same as a unanimous vote in which everyone explicitly votes to support (or oppose) a motion. Robert agrees: ‘ “Unanimous consent” does not necessarily imply that every member present is in favor of the proposed action . . .’ (4:60). It means that they acquiesce to the proposal — for any number of possible reasons, ranging from opposing the matter but feeling there is no point in discussing or voting on it, to not having a strong view one way or the other, to actually agreeing with the proposal. ‘General consent’ is sometimes preferred as a more accurate description of what members are doing when they decline to object.
Is Unanimous Consent as Official as Voting?
As the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure notes, unanimous or general consent ‘is a valid method to adopt the motion’. The chair still needs to describe accurately what action is to be taken (just as he or she would in stating and re-stating a motion), so everyone can make an informed decision on whether or not to object. Voting for a motion, of course, is by definition ‘more formal’, but that doesn’t in and of itself make it ‘more official’. There is nothing second-class, in other words, about adopting a motion or approving an action by unanimous consent (without objection) compared to a motion adopted following debate and vote. There may be good reasons to prefer one method over the other (and obviously motions on which there are differences of opinion do require discussion and a vote), but there is absolutely no difference in the authority or validity of the decision between the two methods.
How Is Unanimous Consent Recorded in the Minutes?
The specific format of minutes does vary from one organization to another, but the basic principle should always be to record what was decided, not what was discussed. In the case of the first scenario discussed earlier (adoption of the agenda), the minutes might simply record:
‘The agenda was adopted as circulated, without objection.’
If there was an amendment:
‘The agenda, amended to include an update on the annual lecture series under New Business, was adopted without objection.’
In the case of a motion that was moved and seconded but adopted by unanimous consent:
‘It was moved, seconded and adopted without objection that …..’
If the chair assumes a motion, such as in the final scenario above:
‘The President reported that the Board of Directors had recently negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Agreement with [name of other association], enabling members of both organizations to share certain benefits. During discussion of the President’s Report, the following motion was proposed and adopted without objection: “That the AGM endorse the board’s signing of the Memorandum of Agreement with [name of the association].” ’
If the chair has obtained unanimous consent without seeking a mover or a vote, the secretary needs to find appropriate language to record the decision.
How to Handle Pushback
As I indicated earlier, some members have difficulty accepting procedural shortcuts such as the chair assuming motions and using unanimous consent to make decisions. Citing Robert can sometimes resolve concerns, but it may take time for members to become accustomed to change if a chair suddenly introduces new procedures. The chair can respond to questions from members (who might raise a parliamentary inquiry as to why a mover or a vote isn’t required), but if someone continually objects to unanimous consent simply because they insist on following ‘formal’ procedure, the chair may have to rely on others to try to persuade recalcitrant members that it is both appropriate and sensible to make decisions quickly when no one objects.
Ultimately, we have to choose our procedural battles, and this might not be a hill to die on. Periodically holding training workshops on parliamentary procedure, however, is always a good idea as a way to ensure that members have up to date knowledge. In fact, next to recommending the use of unanimous consent, organizing parliamentary training for members is my next favourite recommendation!
Michael Mouritsen is a Registered Parliamentarian based in Ontario, Canada. More resources can be found at MichaelMouritsen.ca. Your feedback, including pushback, is always welcome!
