counting votes/action by majority of members present/ 1 abstains

[Guest hardy king]

our town council has 5 members, one seat is vacant, election 30 days away. at call of order there are 4 members present, 3 would be a quorum 3 also would be a majority of council members present. so meeting moves forward, under a particular motion being debated and voted on, one council member has recused himself due conflict if interest and state law. the remaining 3 members vote, 2 in favor, one nay,as presiding officer I called the motion failed for lack of majority of members present[3]. 1. was I correct?

2. at next meeting, if recusing member leaves room,building,etc. is he still counted as present for sake of counting as still needing 3 votes to pass if 4 are present at beginning of meeting?

[Steven Britton]

It depends. If Robert's controls and there are no other rules that effects the threshold that adopts a vote, then 2 votes in the affirmative with 1 vote in the negative would adopt the proposal. The outcome is based on a majority of those present and voting.

If the outcome of the vote is based on a majority of those present, then the motion would be lost.

Check your bylaws, superior governing documents and appropriate statutes to be sure.

[Guest Hardy King]

Steve, our ordinance requires action of council by majority of those "present", not "and voting". We had 4 present at the beginning of the meeting, and when the motion was made and seconded, and the recusing member recused himself, there was still 4 members "present", three of which voted. 2 yays, 1 nay. I declared the motion failed for lack of majority of those present. Was this the correct ruling?

[Steven Britton]

I declared the motion failed for lack of majority of those present. Was this the correct ruling?

Generally I would say "yes," you were correct. With the threshold you have described, a motion would need three votes in the affirmative for it to be adopted.

When using the term "recuse themselves" in describing the situation, it might get a bit stickey. If the person recusing themself stayed in the room and abstained from voting, the motion was lost. They were still present.

However, if the person recusing themself left the room while the voting occurred, the motion would only need 2 affirmative votes for adoption.

[Gary c Tesser]

*Sigh* I think this depends on what "recusing" is. The word (or its variations) doesn't appear in RONR. I just searched, and there are twelve threads on the effect of recusing. But I have just spent almost three huors reading them (plus some links), and the thing is, I have this feeling that I recently read that if a recusal is mandatory (not voluntary) and it actually removes the right to vote from the member for the time being, then he doesn't count as a member for the duration. But I can't find it now. (And at $4.50 an hour, somebody owes me $13.50.) So it might be I imagined it. Man, I wish I were omniscient sometimes, it would make it a lot easier to know stuff.

Oh, and ... you might want to check with a lawyer on this, but, and I'm not practicing law here, if a member leaves the room or the building, he becomes absent. And when he is absent, he is not present (this meeting or next).

[Gary c Tesser]

(Yuck. I wrote post #5 before the last sentence of Mr Britton's post 4 sank in.)

[Trina]

*Sigh* I think this depends on what "recusing" is. The word (or its variations) doesn't appear in RONR. I just searched, and there are twelve threads on the effect of recusing. But I have just spent almost three huors reading them (plus some links), and the thing is, I have this feeling that I recently read that if a recusal is mandatory (not voluntary) and it actually removes the right to vote from the member for the time being, then he doesn't count as a member for the duration. But I can't find it now. (And at $4.50 an hour, somebody owes me $13.50.) So it might be I imagined it. Man, I wish I were omniscient sometimes, it would make it a lot easier to know stuff.

...

I have this recollection also... and the original poster did say the member had to recuse himself, due to conflict of interest 'and state law.' I'll see (later) if I can find the thread (not promising any three-hour searches, though ).

our town council has 5 members, one seat is vacant, election 30 days away. at call of order there are 4 members present, 3 would be a quorum 3 also would be a majority of council members present. so meeting moves forward, under a particular motion being debated and voted on, one council member has recused himself due conflict if interest and state law. the remaining 3 members vote, 2 in favor, one nay,as presiding officer I called the motion failed for lack of majority of members present[3]. 1. was I correct?

2. at next meeting, if recusing member leaves room,building,etc. is he still counted as present for sake of counting as still needing 3 votes to pass if 4 are present at beginning of meeting?

Although I'm uncertain of the answer to your question 1) at the moment (for the reason described above), I agree with the other posters in responding to question 2) -- if the member is not present in the room at the time of the vote, you would not count him as present (under the rules in RONR).

Another thing that may be worth pointing out is that, even if you were incorrect, that is water under the bridge at this point -- since it was announced that the motion failed, and no point of order was raised at the time.

[David A Foulkes]

I have this recollection also... and the original poster did say the member had to recuse himself, due to conflict of interest 'and state law.' I'll see (later) if I can find the thread (not promising any three-hour searches, though ).

Two that delve into this discussion:

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/8938-public-hearing-on-item-without-a-quorom/

http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/7036-quorum-and-recused-members/

Not sure the answer is definitive, but there's some food for thought there.

[Guest Hardy King]

Here's more information to consider: Under SC State Law which is where I am residing Section 813-700 ( no public official, ... may make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use his office, ... to influence a government decision in which he, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he is associated, or a business with which he is associated, has an economic interest. A public official, ... is required to take an action or make a decision which affects an economic interest of himself, a member of his immediate family, ... shall : (1) prepare a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decisions and the nature of his potential conflict of interest with the respect to the action or decision; (4) if he is a public official, ... , he shall furnish a copy of the statement to the presiding officer of the governing body of the municipality...on which he serves, who shall cause his statement to be printed in the minutes and require that the member be excused from any votes, deliberations, and other actions on the matter which the potential conflict of interest exists, and shall cause the disqualification and reasons for it to be noted in the minutes. According to State Law a member recusing himself is not required to leave the meeting. According to our Town Ordinance "no councilmember may leave the council chamber following public session without permission of the presiding officer." I am the presiding officer, he did not leave during the vote. He walked out afterwards, and 2 yays tried to put it back on the table. I didn't allow it. If he decides to leave without permission at our next meeting, which I will not provide, I believe he is still counted as present, because by his leaving and changing the numbers of those present, he would be in effect making and taking action to influence the vote. Would he not be in affect voting affirmative that would allow the conflict of interest and economic interest to prevail? It is my understanding, according to our Town Ordinance "and all action of the council shall be by a majority vote of the members present at a public meeting" - He would in fact still be present because when we called the meeting to order he was recognized as present. If the mere leaving of the room without permission can adjust the numbers for members present, then there wouldn't be a reason for his required recusal. A required recusal is counted as a negative, so it doesn't have an affect on the vote. When he provides his letter of recusal that is actually at that moment, in my opinion, 2 members voting yay, 1 member voting nay, and one member recusing himself, for a total of 2 votes out of 4.

[Guest Edgar]

If the mere leaving of the room without permission can adjust the numbers for members present . . .

If you inhabit a world where an absent member is counted as present you'll want to consult Lewis Carroll (or George Orwell), not Henry Robert.

[Trina]

This is the recent thread I was thinking of (start around post #8 if you want to save a little reading time):

[Steven Britton]

This is the recent thread I was thinking of (start around post #8 if you want to save a little reading time):

http://robertsrules....ate-percentage/

Hardy:

Click on the link above and specifically look to answers #9 and #15 from Mr. Honemann. I will defer to his answer. Thank you, Trina.

Also, I would not agree that a recusal is an automatic affirmative or negative vote. I believe it would be an abstention, a non-vote that is not counted.

And, after the person walked out of the room, what would prohibit the two remaining council members from moving that the particular vote be "Reconsided?" In this situation and if Robert's controls, " the chair must count those present immediateley after the affirmative vote is taken, before any change can take place in attendance." (p.403, l. 21-24)

The only prohibitive factor in Robert's is whether the motion to Reconsider the vote had previously been defeated.

You should check with your jurisdiction's attorney regarding the interpretation of the statute.

[Steven Britton]

(Yuck. I wrote post #5 before the last sentence of Mr Britton's post 4 sank in.)

You mean Elvis couldn't vote if he's left the building? <wink ikon ommitted>