Abstaining during voting

[Guest Bob D]

Abstaining during voting has become an issue with our Board of Governors.  We have a board of 11 elected members where it would not be uncommon for 11 to attend a meeting, where 3 vote yea, and one votes Nay, with 7 abstaining.  The majority is abstaining on most votes.  This allows a few voting directors to make the decisions.  I'm surprised Roberts Rules of Order do not address this issue.  Many members feel the votes should be a majority of the entire board (6) to approve any motion.  However, the only thing I see in RRoO is that "blank" votes will be ignored.  I take this to mean abstentions will be ignored.  I'm interested in how others interpret abstaining.

[Richard Brown]

RONR provides that members Have the right to abstain and that votes are based on the number of members present and voting. What you say is happening is perfectly proper under RONR. 

If you desire to have a higher threshold, such as the vote of the majority of the members present, you need to specify that in your bylaws.

[Bruce Lages]

If enough of your members feel that this is an undesirable situation, it would be proper to make these board members' voting records ( I assume it is possible with 11 board members to recognize who is frequently abstaining) an issue at the next election. You just might be able to replace these non-participating members with other, more conscientious people. Even though they do have the right to abstain, I believe that members are elected to boards with the expectation that they will participate to the maximum extent possible in the business of the board, and that requires casting a vote when you have an opinion on the matter being voted on.

[Atul Kapur]

You could call a Division of the Assembly. Sometimes people are more likely to cast a vote when it involves them standing up and showing how they vote, rather than just a voice vote.

Of course, I'm assuming that you are doing voice voting or show of hands (as you are a small board) despite the fact that you give numbers, which I assume is by way of example.

[Rob Elsman]

A member who has formed an opinion about a question does have a duty to express that opinion through his vote, but he cannot be compelled to vote. RONR (11th ed.), p. 407.

A main motion that is broadly considered to be pointless, profitless, untimely, or otherwise unfortunate may be gotten rid of by adopting the subsidiary motion, Postpone Indefinitely, by majority vote, the effect of which will be to drop the main motion and prevent it from being renewed for the remainder of the session without taking a direct vote on it. RONR (11th ed.), §11, pp. 126ff.

Given the above citations, why the original poster does not think RONR considers the issues he raises is beyond me.

[anon]

Caution is advised before rushing out to revise your bylaws to require a majority vote be based on votes "present" vice votes "present and cast."

Consider whether or not there will be enough votes present to fill each position with a majority of the voting interest. Since abstentions cannot be prevented and there may not be many votes present based on potentially low quorum requirements and small organizations, you may end up with more unfilled positions than desired. In fact, there may be a remote possibility for none of the open positions to be filled.

Provisions for a majority vote by those present, rather than present and cast, gives power to abstainers who may want to prevent certain candidates from being elected despite the fact that some positions may go unfilled. After elections, your organization may follow requirements for filling vacancies.

[Guest Bob D]

Thank you all very much for your insight.

[Richard Brown]

Guest Bob, adding to the response by Dr. Kapur,  a motion could be adopted requiring any particular vote to be taken by roll call vote. Also, your organization could adopt a special rule of order requiring all board votes, or at least votes on original main motions, to be taken by roll call vote. 
As someone else has already done, I would urge caution in changing your vote threshold to base it on the vote of a majority of the members present rather than the standard majority vote of those members present and voting.

[Rob Elsman]

I join with the other responders about changing the vote required to adopt every class of main motions. The basis of decision-making in deliberative assemblies is the majority vote. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 4, 400. Although it is not terribly uncommon for a society's bylaws to segregate certain classes of very important main motions and require something more than a majority vote for adoption, requiring a "super majority" vote on every class of main motions is, frankly, unwise and—well—ridiculous.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Although it is not terribly uncommon for a society's bylaws to segregate certain classes of very important main motions and require something more than a majority vote for adoption, requiring a "super majority" vote on every class of main motions is, frankly, unwise and—well—ridiculous.

I agree.  That is why I specified ORIGINAL main motions, not ALL main motions. See pages 100-104 of RONR. I suppose  the use of the term "substantive main motion" could be used instead of "original main motion", but i think that could lead to confusion and disagreement as to exactly which motions are "substantive".  So, I prefer to stick to the term used in RONR for motions which introduce new business to the assembly, i.e., an "original main motion" as per the top of page 100.  

I also agree that the organization could limit the requirement of a different vote threshold (or method) even further, such as motions to increase the dues, to adopt a budget, to buy or sell or encumber real estate,  to make certain expenditures, etc.

[Rob Elsman]

Even requiring something more than a majority vote for adoption of all classes of original main motions is equally unwise and ridiculous.

[Guest Paul]

What does voting "present" during a public meeting mean? Does it count as a "yes" or a "no" vote?

[Atul Kapur]

Present = Abstain

It doesn't count at all, except to show that the person was present.

Guest Paul, this forum prefers that you ask a new question as a new topic, rather than tacking it on to a topic that seems related.