Stand conflicted voters aside from a decision

Purpose

A voter with a conflict stands aside from a decision, and staff are prompted when a disclosed interest touches what is being decided.

How It Works

A voter who has a conflict stands aside from a decision before it closes, with their reason and, if they wish, the disclosure behind it. Staff record recusals in the console; a member can recuse themselves in the portal. A voter is recused once, never after voting, and a recused voter cannot vote; the committee’s rules decide whether the recused leave the count or count as absent. The product also suggests recusals: when one of a voter’s accepted or flagged disclosures names an organization or contact the decision is linked to, that voter is suggested with the reason. Because a suggestion reveals what someone disclosed, only staff who read disclosures see suggestions, and in the portal a voter sees only their own. The recusals of a confidential decision are hidden like the decision. Today the portal refuses recusal from a draft decision although the operation describes draft or open; the product should decide which it means.

Relationships

Relates to CAP-CMT-MTG-010 because recusals are part of the decision’s record.
Relates to CAP-CMT-MTG-014 because disclosures are the basis of suggestions.
Relates to CAP-CMT-MTG-011 because the rules decide how recusals count.

Show evidence (sources, provenance, origins, pinned commits)

The Formal Contract

The narrative above explains; the sections below are authoritative — the rules, scenarios and tests this document binds.

Outcomes: Conflicted voters do not voteDisclosed interests prompt recusal at the right decisionWho disclosed what stays private
Surfaces: apiportal
Preconditions: The decision is draft or open.
Intent sources: services-committees:docs/milestones/CMTE-M6-disclosures-and-recusals.md#Objective

Controls

24 controls apply, from the corpus control catalogue.

TC-AZ-001 TC-AZ-002 TC-AZ-003 TC-AZ-004 TC-AZ-006 TC-TEN-001 TC-TEN-002 TC-TEN-003 TC-TEN-004 TC-SEC-001 TC-SEC-004 TC-DAT-001 TC-DAT-002 TC-DAT-003 TC-LOG-001 TC-LOG-002 TC-LOG-003 TC-LOG-004 TC-LOG-005 TC-PI-001 TC-PI-003 TC-PI-005 TC-PRV-001 TC-PRV-002

Permissions

Key	Checked at	Scope
`committees.decisions.read`	api	tenant
`committees.decisions.manage`	api	tenant
`committees.disclosures.read`	api	tenant
`committees.portal.participate`	api	record

Business Rules

8 rules, 7 to be proved before approval. A rule's product intent is derived from its origin: 0 confirmed by a product decision, the rest inheriting this capability's proposed.

Id	Rule	Kind	Enforced at	Provenance
`01`must prove Proposed	A recusal is recorded with its reason while a decision is draft or open, for one of its voters, once, and never after that voter has voted. no proof recorded yet	validation	service, database	observed services-committees:modules/decisions/services/persistence/decisions.ts:recordRecusal
`02`must prove Proposed	A recused voter cannot vote on the decision. no proof recorded yet	validation	service	test services-committees:modules/decisions/tests/integration/services/decisions.integration.spec.ts#refuses a recused member’s vote, 409 recused
`03`must prove Proposed	A recusal that names a disclosure must name one of the recused voter’s own; any other is refused as unknown. no proof recorded yet	validation	service	test services-committees:modules/decisions/tests/integration/api/recusal-disclosure.integration.spec.ts#answers 400 unknown_disclosure naming the field for another voter’s disclosure
`04`must prove Proposed	A voter is suggested for recusal when one of their accepted or flagged disclosures, for a period not yet ended, names an organization or contact the decision is linked to. no proof recorded yet	calculation	service	test services-committees:modules/decisions/tests/integration/services/disclosures.integration.spec.ts#suggests the voter whose accepted disclosure names the decision’s linked organization, and why
`05`must prove Proposed	Recusal suggestions are shown only to those who read disclosures, and in the portal a voter sees only their own. no proof recorded yet	permission	api, service	test services-committees:modules/decisions/tests/integration/api/recusal-confidentiality.integration.spec.ts#shows the bookkeeper an open decision’s recusals without suggestions
`06`must prove Proposed	The recusals of a confidential decision are hidden exactly as the decision is. no proof recorded yet	permission	api, service	test services-committees:modules/decisions/tests/integration/api/recusal-confidentiality.integration.spec.ts#answers the bookkeeper 404 for the confidential decision’s recusals
`07`must prove Proposed	A member recuses themselves from the portal with their reason; today the portal refuses a draft decision, though the operation promises draft or open. no proof recorded yet	validation	service	test react-console:acceptance/committees/playwright/journeys/decisions/CMT-ACC-0350.spec.ts#CMT-ACC-0350
`08` Proposed	A recusal never removes the voter from the frozen voters; the committee’s rules decide how it counts.	invariant	database	observed services-committees:modules/decisions/db/recusals.table.ts

Scenarios

Id	Given	When	Then	Provenance
`01`	A director whose firm is linked to the audit vote	Staff holding the disclosures key read the decision	They see the director suggested for recusal with the reason	test react-console:acceptance/committees/playwright/journeys/decisions/CMT-ACC-0354.spec.ts#CMT-ACC-0354

Planning

Stand conflicted voters aside from a decision ​

Purpose ​

How It Works ​

Relationships ​