What happens if 100% of the Board abstains from a vote?

[Guest 22cwa424]

What happens in the situation when 100% of the Board abstains from voting on an issue? Is the issue rejected? Can it be brought forth again? Was there ever a quorum in the first place?

[Joshua Katz]

If no one votes on a motion, then the motion fails on a tied vote. I don't understand the second part; either a quorum was present or one was not, and it has nothing to do with who abstains.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/13/2023 at 6:49 PM, Guest 22cwa424 said:

What happens in the situation when 100% of the Board abstains from voting on an issue? Is the issue rejected? Can it be brought forth again? Was there ever a quorum in the first place?

On ordinary main motions, the vote required to adopt is a majority vote, which means more Yes votes than No votes.  If the number of yes and no votes is equal (a tie) the motion fails.  Even if the tie is 0-0.  The motion is rejected.

There was a quorum if a sufficient number of voters were present in the room--no matter if they actually vote or not.

But if nobody cared how the motion turned out, I'm surprised that anyone bothered to make the motion in the first place, or why anyone seconded it.

Was there something unusual about this motion?

Edited to add:

Oh, and yes it can be brought up again as soon as the next meeting.

Edited June 14, 2023 at 12:36 AM by Gary Novosielski

[puzzling]

On 6/13/2023 at 11:49 PM, Guest 22cwa424 said:

What happens in the situation when 100% of the Board abstains from voting on an issue? Is the issue rejected? Can it be brought forth again? Was there ever a quorum in the first place?

Bit puzzling was an vote called, or was unanimous consent given?

(maybe it was not clear that some motion was adopted by  unanimous consent, specially if it was never mentioned)

[J. J.]

On 6/13/2023 at 7:30 PM, Joshua Katz said:

If no one votes on a motion, then the motion fails on a tied vote. I don't understand the second part; either a quorum was present or one was not, and it has nothing to do with who abstains.

If there is no objection, should the chair not declare the motion adopted?

If a roll call or ballot vote is required, I withdraw my question. 

[Joshua Katz]

Hmm. That's an oddity I hadn't thought of. It seems there are compelling arguments both that it carries and does not carry on a voice vote. I'm not sure what to do with that.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it depends on what the chair said.

• "If there is no objection, the <issue> will be adopted.  Hearing none, the motion is adopted."

versus:

• "Those in favor will say Aye.... <silence>  [ <optional> Those opposed will say No.... <silence>]  A sufficient number not having responded, the motion is rejected." 

Edited June 14, 2023 at 07:10 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 6/13/2023 at 5:49 PM, Guest 22cwa424 said:

What happens in the situation when 100% of the Board abstains from voting on an issue? Is the issue rejected?

Yes, the motion fails. A majority of the votes cast is required for adoption. A tie vote is not sufficient, so a vote of 0-0 is not sufficient for adoption.

Additional facts on why this very unusual situation is happening may be helpful for determining next steps.

On 6/13/2023 at 5:49 PM, Guest 22cwa424 said:

Can it be brought forth again?

Yes. The rules on this matter are the same as for any other defeated motion. (The suggestions below assume this is a main motion and there are no unusual facts which would prevent reconsideration or renewal.)

• At the same meeting, a member who voted on the prevailing side (which in this case, is everyone) may move to Reconsider, which may be adopted by a majority vote and, if adopted, brings the motion back before the assembly for consideration.
• At a future meeting, the motion may be renewed (that is, simply made again).

On 6/13/2023 at 5:49 PM, Guest 22cwa424 said:

Was there ever a quorum in the first place?

A quorum is based on the number of members present, not the number of members who vote. Board members who abstain continue to count toward the quorum, so long as they remain in the room. So assuming there was a quorum present before the vote was taken, there continued to be a quorum present notwithstanding that all board members who were present abstained, so long as they remained in the room.

On 6/14/2023 at 1:42 PM, J. J. said:

If there is no objection, should the chair not declare the motion adopted?

But the situation is not that the chair requested unanimous consent. Rather, a formal vote was taken, and the result was a vote of 0-0, which is not a majority. The chair can't retroactively declare this to be a request for unanimous consent. Of course, if the chair wishes for the motion to be adopted, the chair can simply vote in the affirmative to break the tie.

Depending on why this unusual situation occurred, it may well be that an appropriate next step would be for the chair to request unanimous consent, but I would like to hear more facts before reaching that conclusion.

Edited June 15, 2023 at 11:57 AM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 6/15/2023 at 7:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

But the situation is not that the chair requested unanimous consent. Rather, a formal vote was taken, and the result was a vote of 0-0, which is not a majority. The chair can't retroactively declare this to be a request for unanimous consent. Of course, if the chair wishes for the motion to be adopted, the chair can simply vote in the affirmative to break the tie.

Depending on why this unusual situation occurred, it may well be that an appropriate next step would be for the chair to request unanimous consent, but I would like to hear more facts before reaching that conclusion.

How did the chair declare it at the time?  If there was no objection to whatever the chair determined, that is what happened. 

[Drake Savory]

On 6/15/2023 at 5:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

At the same meeting, a member who voted on the prevailing side (which in this case, is everyone) may move to Reconsider

Or nobody since no one voted against the motion.  Just like a person who abstains on a non 0-0 vote cannot move to reconsider.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/15/2023 at 11:30 AM, Drake Savory said:

Or nobody since no one voted against the motion.  Just like a person who abstains on a non 0-0 vote cannot move to reconsider.

Yes, I would assume it would be no one, since the motion failed, and nobody voted on the prevailing side (i.e., No).  Am I off-base here?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree that a motion that was put to a vote but didn't receive any votes — that is, it received neither any votes in the affirmative nor any in the negative — should be declared rejected, but there are many anomalies involved. I think some reasonableness is needed here and simply trying to analyze the rules as stated in the book may not be sufficient.

- Strictly by definition, although a majority vote (more than half the votes cast) in the affirmative has not been obtained, a two-thirds vote (at least two-thirds of the votes cast) in the affirmative has been obtained.

- The noes would seem to have prevailed — but there weren't any noes! And certainly no one voted on the prevailing side, because no one voted on any side. But given all that is said in 37:10(a), I would tend to agree with Mr. Martin that every member — or actually, every member who was present at the time the vote was conducted — is eligible to move to Reconsider:

The motion to Reconsider can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. In other words, a reconsideration can be moved only by one who voted aye if the motion involved was adopted, or no if the motion was lost. (In standing and special committees, however, the motion to Reconsider can be made by any member who did not vote on the losing side—including one who did not vote at all.) It should be noted that it is possible for a minority to be the prevailing side if a motion requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption is lost.
A member who voted by ballot may make the motion if he is willing to waive the secrecy of his ballot. If the motion to be reconsidered was adopted by unanimous consent, all the members present at the time of the adoption are in the same position as if they had voted on the prevailing side and qualify to move to reconsider. Similarly, if a motion was lost but the negative vote was not taken because it was intrinsically irrelevant (see 44:9(a)), the members present at the time who did not vote in favor qualify to move to reconsider.
This requirement for making the motion to Reconsider is a protection against its dilatory use by a defeated minority—especially when the motion is debatable (see Standard Characteristic 5, above) and the minority is large enough to prevent adoption of the Previous Question (16). When a member who cannot move a reconsideration believes there are valid reasons for one, he should try, if there is time or opportunity, to persuade someone who voted with the prevailing side to make such a motion. Otherwise, he can obtain the floor while no business is pending and briefly state his reasons for hoping that a reconsideration will be moved, provided that this does not run into debate; or, if necessary while business is pending, he can request permission to state such reasons (see Request for Any Other Privilege, 33:22).

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/15/2023 at 8:49 AM, J. J. said:

How did the chair declare it at the time?  If there was no objection to whatever the chair determined, that is what happened. 

I agree.

The reason why this question has not been answered is most likely because the factual situation presented is a purely hypothetical one omitting an essential fact.  If, however, the question being asked is what should the chair say in declaring the result of the vote in such an extraordinary situation, my answer would be that he should declare that, there being not a single vote in favor of adoption, the motion is not agreed to. 

 

[Rob Elsman]

On 6/16/2023 at 6:45 AM, Dan Honemann said:

...the motion is not agreed to.

It is a picky point, but I would train an aspiring presiding officer to say, instead, "...the motion is rejected."

[Rob Elsman]

The reason for my "picky point" is that the phrase, "...the motion is not agreed to" might leave the incorrect impression that the society did not decide something.  RONR (12th ed.) 4:3, however, tells us that, by rejecting a motion, the society "...expressly decides against doing what the motion proposes...".

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

It is a picky point, but I would train an aspiring presiding officer to say, instead, "...the motion is rejected."

I understand that, under ordinary circumstances, the chair should declare a motion that is not adopted as being "lost" (or "rejected"), but under these extraordinary circumstances I prefer "the motion is not agreed to." 

[Josh Martin]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:42 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, I would assume it would be no one, since the motion failed, and nobody voted on the prevailing side (i.e., No).  Am I off-base here?

Well, this is a very unusual situation in which technically no one voted on any side.

A literal reading of the rules on Reconsider would therefore seem to suggest that no one can move to Reconsider, but I think it is in keeping with the spirit of the rules on this matter that in these circumstances, any member who was present may move to Reconsider. It seems comparable to a situation in which a motion is adopted by unanimous consent. It's sort of the reverse of that situation.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:35 AM, Josh Martin said:

Well, this is a very unusual situation in which technically no one voted on any side.

A literal reading of the rules on Reconsider would therefore seem to suggest that no one can move to Reconsider, but I think it is in keeping with the spirit of the rules on this matter that in these circumstances, any member who was present may move to Reconsider. It seems comparable to a situation in which a motion is adopted by unanimous consent. It's sort of the reverse of that situation.

It should come as no surprise that RONR provides no specific answer to this question, but RONR does clearly provide the procedure to be followed in resolving it.  The chair will rule one way or the other, subject to an appeal 

[J. J.]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:35 AM, Josh Martin said:

Well, this is a very unusual situation in which technically no one voted on any side.

A literal reading of the rules on Reconsider would therefore seem to suggest that no one can move to Reconsider, but I think it is in keeping with the spirit of the rules on this matter that in these circumstances, any member who was present may move to Reconsider. It seems comparable to a situation in which a motion is adopted by unanimous consent. It's sort of the reverse of that situation.

Or anyone present can move to reconsider. 

Whatever the chair rules, if no one objects, is the answer.  Bizarre situation. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/16/2023 at 9:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I understand that, under ordinary circumstances, the chair should declare a motion that is not adopted as being "lost" (or "rejected"), but under these extraordinary circumstances I prefer "the motion is not agreed to." 

Yes, it's difficult to say that it was "rejected" when nobody voted against it.   "Lost" seems, in a way, poetically appropriate though.

[Rob Elsman]

Odd as it may seem, the assembly expressly decided not to do what the motion proposed, since there were not more affirmative votes than negative votes. I sense a sort of squeamishness about applying the proper terms, "rejected" or "lost"; however, these terms exactly describe the result of the vote.

I am of the opinion that some subconsciously and instinctively resist the distinction between the assembly not deciding to do what the motion proposes and the assembly expressly deciding not to do what the motion proposes.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/17/2023 at 9:36 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Odd as it may seem, the assembly expressly decided not to do what the motion proposed, since there were not more affirmative votes than negative votes. I sense a sort of squeamishness about applying the proper terms, "rejected" or "lost"; however, these terms exactly describe the result of the vote.

I am of the opinion that some subconsciously and instinctively resist the distinction between the assembly not deciding to do what the motion proposes and the assembly expressly deciding not to do what the motion proposes.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but when everyone abstains, it indicates that no one has a preference, and is prepared to acquiesce in the decision arrived at by others.  This is different from the typical tie vote, where  people take actual positions on both sides, but neither achieves a majority. 

In the zero-zero case, with nobody on either side, the motion dies not because of a sufficiently strong opposition, but because of something more like neglect.

Edited June 17, 2023 at 10:34 PM by Gary Novosielski
too many words