Abstaining member taking action on subsidiary motions

[councilman.tw]

Our town council is made of 5 members and 1 chair (which only votes on ties).

During our last meeting one member was absent resulting in four members and the chair being present.

We had a motion that was seconded and debated. During debate one member stated they would abstain due to possible conflict but was angry because he felt the action would result in action not agreeing with his position.

Debate continued for almost an hour - A member called to question because several other items remained on agenda

The call to question was seconded and sent to vote the member which stated he would abstain from the main motion voted on the subsidiary call to question which resulted in a 2-2 tie and chair voted no - resulting 3-2 majority vote.and discussion continued.

After further discussion the "abstaining member" motioned to table the main motion until next meeting, when the absent member would be present to vote and ensure the vote would go in favor of abstaining member's position. 

The motion to table until next meeting was seconded and resulted in a 2-2 vote of members and chair voted yes - resulting 3-2 majority vote to table.

I have a couple questions

First - can an "abstaining member" make a SUBSIDIARY MOTION or vote on a SUBSIDIARY MOTION

If either of these are not "Proper", how do you correct if at the following meeting all members are present.

Edited February 23, 2017 at 02:24 AM by councilman.tw

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Under RONR, members are not required to abstain or recuse themselves due to conflict of interest. Nor does announcing that one will abstain remove any rights of membership. So yes, it was in order for your angry member to vote and make motions. However, there is such thing as a motion "to table" that automatically puts off the question. The motion to postpone to the next meeting should have been agreed to by majority vote.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 minute ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Under RONR, members are not required to abstain or recuse themselves due to conflict of interest. Nor does announcing that one will abstain remove any rights of membership. So yes, it was in order for your angry member to vote and make motions. However, there is such thing as a motion "to table" that automatically puts off the question. The motion to postpone to the next meeting should have been agreed to by majority vote.

whoops *no such thing*

[councilman.tw]

 

Guest Who's Coming to Dinner:

When you stated: "The motion to table until the next meeting should have been agreed to by majority vote" 

The motion to table until next meeting was seconded and resulted in a 2-2 vote of members and chair voted yes.

 

[Richard Brown]

Councilman, since this is apparently a public body, I suggest you check your State's open meetings laws and ethics laws regarding the circumstances under which a member of the public body should or must abstain or recuse himself from voting or perhaps even refrain from participating in the consideration of a matter. Those matters are outside the scope of RONR and are frequently covered by state laws.

Whether there are applicable state laws and whether those laws permit a member to participate in the debate or voting on subsidiary and incidental motions is a matter of interpreting your state law.

Other than the above caveat, I agree with the comment by Guest Who's Coming to Dinner.

Edited to add: it is my understanding that the motion to postpone was in fact adopted by a majority vote

Edited February 23, 2017 at 02:13 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[councilman.tw]

 

I appreciate both your inputs Va.'s FOIA/COIA statute are pretty broad.