At a meeting a member of the committee says that they would not be held responsible if something went wrong as the result of a decision taken as they were not present and did not vote for it:
- False, all decisions are taken on a majority vote and are subject to corporate responsibility and all members are equally liable
- True, only people voting for a motion can be held responsible if something subsequently goes wrong
- Only members who have their dissent from a decision recorded in the minutes can avoid corporate responsibility
There are two issues here around the subject of corporate responsibility. One is about what happens if you fail to attend a meeting and something is decided that you are not happy about, the other is whether a trustee can avoid corporate responsibity by having their objection formally recorded.
The first point is, I hope, obvious. If you do not go to a meeting you can't subsequently say 'If I had been present I would have voted against' or something along those lines. If you fail to go to a meeting the meeting will go on without you and any decisions taken will be binding on all the committee, not just those present.
Secondly, Charity Law is quite clear that the board of trustees/management committee are subject to corporate responsibility in that if the majority vote for a motion then the body, as a whole, is responsible for that decision. Individuals cannot escape this by avoiding a meeting or by voting against or abstaining even if they have their dissent recorded.
This also means that as trustees change so the new members become liable for decisions taken by their predecessors and that is why important issues should be kept under constant review.
Neither option 2 or 3 can be correct based on this ruling and option 1 is the correct answer.