ABSTENTION

[LSCHelper]

Small non-profit corporation with a 9 member Board of Directors (BOD).

The president of the BOD ask if a statement could/should be inserted into the By-Laws as follows:

     "If a member abstains from voting that abstention will be counted as a NO vote".

My question is: Would making this statement in the By-Laws be proper/correct?

I understand that Roberts Rules state that "Since an abstention in such cases the same effect as a negative vote, ..."

 

Jerry L.

[jstackpo]

You can put whatever rules you like in the bylaws, as long as you do it properly - i.e., according to the bylaw's rules for amendments, RONR p. 10, even dumb ones.   Once in the bylaws it will supersede RONR and any other rules you choose to adopt.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[LSCHelper]

Am I to understand that you believe that this is 'dumb' change to the By-Laws? If so, I agree with you, however I wanted to get input from experts as to whether this is a good move or a 'dumb' move. After all the President of the BOD ask me the question and I tried to explain to him that an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote but apparently he could not understand that comment.

 

Jerry L..

[Josh Martin]

Am I to understand that you believe that this is 'dumb' change to the By-Laws? If so, I agree with you, however I wanted to get input from experts as to whether this is a good move or a 'dumb' move. After all the President of the BOD ask me the question and I tried to explain to him that an abstention in such cases has the same effect as a negative vote but apparently he could not understand that comment.

See FAQ #6.

[Gödel Fan]

The key in the cited phrase is unpacking "in such cases."  The such cases refers to motions requiring a certain number of affirmative votes to pass - such as a motion that requires a majority vote of the entire membership.  In cases that are not "such," an abstention does not have the same effect as a negative vote, unless your bylaws are amended as suggested.

 

Your Board has 9 members.  A majority of the entire membership is 5.  5 is also, unless you have other provisions, a quorum.  Suppose 5 are present at a meeting, and a motion to amend something previously adopted is made without notice.  Then 5 votes will be needed; anyone abstaining has essentially voted no by failing to contribute an affirmative vote.  On the other hand, suppose an original main motion is made, and 2 people abstain - then it can pass with only 2 voting in the affirmative (1, say, voting against).  The 2 abstentions did not have the same effect as a negative vote.  If the proposed bylaw is adopted, then a main motion with exactly the same votes would fail.  

 

Therefore, I don't think your explanation to the President, based on what you've presented here, was adequate.  It sounds like you told him that what he wants to do is already the case in RONR - it is not.  (This is, perhaps, an example of the general rule that you shouldn't try to copy your parliamentary authority into your bylaws, particularly if you do so based on a misunderstanding.)  

 

So the effect of this bylaw, in part, would be to require that any original main motion requires a majority of those present voting in the affirmative to pass.  2/3 votes will be even more interesting.  

 

Then there's the logistical effects.  In a voice vote, a member abstains by simply not answering (which is why it is incorrect to call for the abstentions - a person failing to respond to all 3 calls has abstained just as effectively as one who responds to the call for abstentions).  But how is the chair supposed to judge whether or not a motion has passed if the volume of the negative is not an effective guide?  I suppose he could, at the start of the meeting, gauge what the full assembly sounds like, and then require half the volume...  Then we have counted votes, where you'll need to record in the minutes the number who abstained - which means establishing, before any vote, who is present for that vote.  Your organization might run into interpretative issues - need a person be present to abstain?  Is an absent member of the board counted as a negative vote under this bylaw?  A case could, potentially, be made (although I'd personally say no).  

 

We can't tell you what your organization should do, of course - but we can clarify that "such cases" is far more limited than "all cases."

[Gary Novosielski]

Small non-profit corporation with a 9 member Board of Directors (BOD).

The president of the BOD ask if a statement could/should be inserted into the By-Laws as follows:

     "If a member abstains from voting that abstention will be counted as a NO vote".

My question is: Would making this statement in the By-Laws be proper/correct?

I understand that Roberts Rules state that "Since an abstention in such cases the same effect as a negative vote, ..."

 

Jerry L.

 

In "such" rare cases as that paragraph is referring to, abstentions do have the same effect as a negative vote (although they are not a negative vote).  But in the vast majority of cases, they do not affect the vote at all.   So putting that provision in the bylaws could have major unintended harmful consequences.  What is the benefit that is being claimed for this?  What problem exists that it purports to solve?  

 

It effectively removes the right of members to abstain, which I would not support.   I agree it's a dumb rule.

[LSCHelper]

I understand and agree with the comments made. But, for clarity the question of voting is not a vote by the BOD, but by the Membership. We had an issue concerning a change to our By-Laws and the final vote was fairly distributed as follows: (apx 130 Members elegiable to vote) 1/3 - NO, 1/3 -YES, 1/3 abstention. The measure failed as our By-Laws require 66 affirmative votes for a proposed change to pass. I have not been able to get the President to describe what he hopes to obtain by proposing this By-Law change. I do not think that the change he is proposing is good for the organization as there could be "major unintended harmful consequences" down the road.

Thanks to all for your input.

 

Jerry L.

[Richard Brown]

I understand and agree with the comments made. But, for clarity the question of voting is not a vote by the BOD, but by the Membership. We had an issue concerning a change to our By-Laws and the final vote was fairly distributed as follows: (apx 130 Members elegiable to vote) 1/3 - NO, 1/3 -YES, 1/3 abstention. The measure failed as our By-Laws require 66 affirmative votes for a proposed change to pass. . . . .

Is the highlighted phrase actually in your bylaws?   What EXACTLY do your bylaws say is the vote requirement to amend the bylaws?  Please don't paraphrase, I'm asking for an exact quote.

[LSCHelper]

Exact quote.

 

These By-Laws may be amended by 2/3 of the member votes cast but not less than 66 affirmative votes.

 

Jerry L.

[Gödel Fan]

I'm lost; was the bylaw proposal that failed the one to insert this "interesting" rule about voting, or some other proposal?  I can't think of any way that this proposal would make it easier for anything to pass; the only impact it can have is to make motions harder to pass.  

 

Even given your current size and requirements to amend your bylaws, you don't necessarily fall into "such a case."  For instance, if you had 120 present, you'd need 80 votes to pass an amendment, so even for that purpose the first 14 abstentions don't act like negative votes.  In any case, I don't see how this is related to the proposal to treat abstentions as genuine negative votes.

 

Of course, it's not improper or wrong to do so, but it could be less than wise unless there's some strong reason to do so that none of us are seeing.  I'd recommend speaking against it in debate and pointing out its substantive effects (in 5th grade language or so - giving technical arguments at a membership meeting is a good way to lose a vote).  

[Dan Honemann]

Is the highlighted phrase actually in your bylaws?   What EXACTLY do your bylaws say is the vote requirement to amend the bylaws?  Please don't paraphrase, I'm asking for an exact quote.

 

 

Exact quote.

 

These By-Laws may be amended by 2/3 of the member votes cast but not less than 66 affirmative votes.

 

Jerry L.

 

Under these circumstances, if only about 1/2 of the votes cast were in the affirmative (as appears to have been the case), then, as you say, the proposed bylaw amendment obviously was not adopted (the rather strange additional requirement that there be not less than 66 affirmative votes is, in this case, irrelevant).

 

If the language which your president is suggesting is inserted into your bylaws ("If a member abstains from voting that abstention will be counted as a NO vote"), much will depend upon where it is inserted. If it is inserted into the provisions setting forth the vote required for passage of bylaw amendments, then the passage of such amendments will become more difficult, since passage will then require the affirmative votes of at least 2/3 of the members present, and not just 2/3 of the votes cast. If it relates only to the vote on other motions, then only the vote required for passage of those motions will be affected. As previously noted, whether or not any of this is a good idea is something for you all to decide.

[Shmuel Gerber]

My imagination must be getting weaker than it once was, because I can't imagine any circumstances in which it would be a good idea to provide that abstentions will be counted as NO votes.

(If abstentions are counted, they should always be counted as no votes, not NO votes.)

[Gödel Fan]

I can't imagine any such circumstances either, but if some organization decides it's a good idea, who am I to object?  The more important question I have, as an outsider, is whether they're doing it in a coherent way.  They can deal with the intended silly outcomes themselves.

[Dan Honemann]

My imagination must be getting weaker than it once was, because I can't imagine any circumstances in which it would be a good idea to provide that abstentions will be counted as NO votes.

(If abstentions are counted, they should always be counted as no votes, not NO votes.)

 

However, I see no practical difference between a rule counting abstentions as NO votes and one requiring a vote of 1/2 (or 2/3, or whatever) of the members present for the adoption of a motion.

[Shmuel Gerber]

However, I see no practical difference between a rule counting abstentions as NO votes and one requiring a vote of 1/2 (or 2/3, or whatever) of the members present for the adoption of a motion.

 

The practical difference is that the latter, even when not a good idea, presents no cause for apoplectic sputtering on the part of the parliamentarian.