Russell Peterson wrote, "I have always hated abstention voting
except in the case of conflict of interest. I have been unable to find in
Robert's Rules of Order abstention as a voting method, perhaps somebody else
has a source."
[BRM] Robert's contains several provisions that mention
abstention. For example, Robert's provides that "the word *majority* means
'more than half'; and when the term *majority vote* is used without
qualification . . . it means more than half of the votes cast by persons
legally entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions . . . ."
(Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, sec. 44, p. 387 (10th ed. 2000).)
The parliamentary manual also offers the advice that "voting requirements
based on the number of members present--a majority of those present, two
thirds of those present, etc.--while possible, are generally undesirable.
Since an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote,
these bases deny members the right to maintain a neutral position by
abstaining" (p. 390). A later section recognizes a "right of abstention":
"Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to
express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to
vote" (sec. 45, p. 394). Robert's does not offer guidelines about when
abstention is appropriate, except the rule which Russell mentioned that "no
member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or
pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization" (p.
394).
Cam Gordon asked, "Did the question still need 7 to pass or could it
have passed with 11 abstentions, 2 for and 1 against?" Karen Collier
answered, "No matter what the others did - abstain, pass or vote no - the
question still needed 7 to pass." Karen's answer is incorrect on two
counts: First, according to Robert's (and every other parliamentary manual
that I am familiar with), a "majority" is ordinarily calculated "excluding
abstentions," so a motion on which the vote is two ayes, one nay, and eleven
abstentions is adopted. Second, if the vote in Cam's example was subject to
a special rule requiring for the motion's adoption a majority of the votes
cast, then the necessary majority is eight, not seven, since there were
fourteen votes.
Karen's answer was on the right track, however, in several instances
in Minnesota legislation and Minneapolis municipal government. The
Minnesota Constitution (art. IV, sec. 23) provides that "no law shall be
passed unless voted for by a majority of all the members elected to each
house of the legislature"--a different rule from the Congress, and from the
common parliamentary law. Likewise, the Minneapolis City Charter (ch. 4,
sec. 9) provides that "all ordinances and resolutions of the City Council
shall be passed by an affirmative vote of a majority of all the members of
the City Council . . . ." The City Charter contains numerous other
provisions that require "a majority of all the members" rather than an
ordinary majority, including the appointment of officers (ch. 2, sec. 2),
appropriations (ch. 4, sec. 11; ch. 5, sec. 10), and appointing a chief
engineer (ch. 7, sec. 5). But other provisions require only an ordinary
majority, such as the provision for the Council overruling the Planning
Commission (ch. 13, sec. 4), waiver of residency (Ordinance 14.180(m)(3)),
and approving mayoral appointments to the Civilian Police Review Authority
(Ordinance 172.30). The Council's rules (Rule 1(E)) explicitly provide that
"except as otherwise provided by law, the term 'majority' shall mean a
majority of those members voting, a quorum being present."
BRM
Brian Melendez
St. Anthony West (Ward 3)
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
