Recording meeting votes with the software

Tracking the vote per individual owner

A reliable voting outcome requires knowing how each participant voted, not just the total. This makes it possible to reconstruct, in case of a dispute, whether an owner who voted against was counted correctly and whether an abstaining owner was excluded from the favourable majority. The software should record the vote associated with the name and their thousandths.

The per-owner detail is also essential for exercising the right to challenge: Article 1137 grants standing to challenge to dissenters and abstainers, as well as to absentees. Knowing with certainty who dissented or abstained on an item determines who can challenge that resolution within the thirty days provided.

Distinguishing in favour, against and abstained

An abstention is not a vote against: the abstaining owner takes part in the constitutive quorum but does not contribute to forming either the favourable or the contrary majority. Confusing abstainers and opponents alters the calculation and may lead to declaring rejected a resolution that was in fact approved, or vice versa. Software must keep the three categories clearly separate.

For each item the system shows the total of those in favour, against and abstained, both in number of heads and in thousandths, and compares it with the required threshold. This makes it immediate to understand whether the resolution is approved, and by what margin, without ambiguity.

• In favour: contribute to forming the majority for approval
• Against: dissenters, entitled to challenge the resolution
• Abstained: count in the constitutive quorum, not in the majority, entitled to challenge
• Double totals: always in heads and in thousandths

Comparing the result with the correct threshold

The votes collected must be compared with the majority set for that type of matter. An ordinary administration item at the second call requires the majority of those present and at least one-third of the value of the building, while an innovation under Article 1120 requires the majority of those present representing at least two-thirds of the value. Applying the wrong threshold is a common error.

Software that knows the type of each item automatically applies the correct threshold and flags whether the result is sufficient. This way the manager does not have to calculate the majority mentally and does not risk declaring approved a resolution that has not reached the required deliberative quorum.

Voting by videoconference and by correspondence

When the meeting is held by videoconference, the remote participant's vote must be collected in real time and counted with the same value as those in the room. The software must identify the voter and record their expression without duplication relative to the attendance list.

Any forms of advance or postal voting, where allowed by the regulations or by the resolution introducing them, must also be brought into the count of the individual item with the correct thousandths weight. A system that unifies the voting channels avoids having to reconcile different sources by hand after the session.

From the voting outcome to the minutes

The outcome of each vote, with the thousandths in favour, against and abstained, is among the elements the minutes must report and that are examined in case of a challenge. Recording the vote in the software during the session means the minutes are generated from the collected data, without reconstructions from memory and without inconsistencies between what happened and what is documented.

AmministraPro collects votes per individual owner, distinguishes in favour, against and abstained on heads and thousandths, applies the correct threshold for each resolution and carries the outcome into the final minutes. The features are described at /funzioni and the plans with their costs at /prezzi.

Frequently asked questions