How should this vote be recorded?

Question

At a parish council meeting last night, recommendations from a committee came to full council and were on the agenda as follows. 

11. Recommendations from committees

Town Enhancements & Amenities Committee -

a) That row 'E' plots at the allotments be closed

b) Replace the yellow slide in Playpark

A number of councillors didn’t agree to point 11a) and a named vote was requested. As the chair tried to move onto 11b) the clerk shut her down saying the vote was for both points. But the councillors who voted against a) didn’t want to vote against b) but the clerk has said that’s how it is. After trying to get some advice from a qualified clerk, I emailed the councillors and I’ve had abusive email back stating I shouldn’t question our clerk. 

Am I wrong?? 

Answer 1

Ask for the two items to be voted on separately - if not either vote against or abstain. A while ago I posted my belief that reasons for abstentions should be recorded in the minutes, if requested. This is a good (or maybe bad) example of why I raised the issue. Oddly enough the idea was roundly trounced. This trend towards scant minutes without full information or context may hinder transparency and misrepresent the actual proceedings, I am also wary of multi-motions of clearly unconnected issues - just my opinion of course. You may also have a case of tail/dog syndrome.

Comments

But the meeting has already take place. Should it have been two separate votes is my biggest question.

---

Yes it should.

Answer 2

The agenda states that there are two recommendations, so there should be two votes. The Chair runs the meetings, not the Clerk. If you have three planning applications, does the Clerk require a single vote either in favour or against all three?

Answer 3

The Clerk and Chair are wrong.  They are two separate items so should have been voted on separately, irrespective of who voted for or against.   Just because a committee, even a single committee, recommended both actions, the two are obviously separate.  In fact, I would have expected two agenda items rather than one in this instance to make it clear that the two items are very clearly separate.
Also, whatever the reason behind the request for a named vote, that too appears to have been incorrectly handled.  A named vote can only be requested before the vote is taken; not afterwards just because someone has disagreed with the proposal.
The meeting has now taken place and the votes cast but I would be inclined, if there is support for it as you will need it, to request a recission of the vote on the grounds that procedurally it was incorrect.   The end result might be the same but at least the procedure would be correct.

Comments

I assumed from the question that the the Chair was treating it as two separate votes but was countered by the TC.

---

@delboy’swife. Can the request for it to be named vote happen as the vote is being done?  I’ve seen info previously stating it can be anytime before the end of that agenda item so I just want to make sure.

---

The latest model standing orders allow the request "before moving on to the next item".

Answer 4

There are 2 inherently separate and different elements.

They should have been presented separately.

Answer 5

If the Chair and other members believed they were voting on agenda item a) only, at the precise time they voted, I'd have thought there's a case for stating the second item, b), wasn't voted on at all.
The minutes should reflect what happened - a procedural error/misunderstanding. Item b) could be added to the next agenda - as there wasn't a valid vote on it, the 6 month resolution rule wouldn't apply.
As others have said, the two items appear unrelated, so lumping them together for one decision made no sense.

Comments

I agree with you, but I have seen the multi-item proposal gambit proffered many times just as I have seen valid points of order ignored or rejected. As I mentioned elsewhere, the "minutes light" reporting fashion does nothing to discourage this sort of thing. If what you suggest is reported in the minutes - great - if not what do you do then? Chairs and councillors with insufficient knowledge/understanding of the standing orders are easy prey. Also SO 3(s) allows a recorded vote request before moving to next item.

---

I guess it's up to the members to reject the draft minutes as an accurate record at the next meeting, then take a vote on an amendment to reflect what happened.
One of those scenarios where it isn't a hill worth dying on for the clerk, IMO. Correct the record and move on.

---

That's fine as long as the consensus of the council agrees to reject the draft minutes. Looks to me like the op is the one climbing the hill here and someone else is already at the top of it.

---

Not an expert on this but after discussing an item of business which is on the agenda should not any vote be preceded by a proposed and seconded motion? .  Therefore in this case an objection could have been raised to a multi pronged motion and the Chairman would decide . Mind you in many cases I am in favour of an actual motion being on the Agenda itself .   As for the assertion that the clerk's opinion should never be challenged well words fail me . That to me is one of the two main reasons why many PCs are simoply not fit for purpose

---

Yes. Indeed.