RONR rule for/against elected officials abstaining from a vote

[Guest Cee]

In several NAP training meetings I've learned that officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting. Where can I find this rule in RONR (12th ed.) or under what authority is this a rule?

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

In several NAP training meetings I've learned that officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting. Where can I find this rule in RONR (12th ed.) or under what authority is this a rule?

Perhaps you should have asked the person or persons conducting these meetings.

[J. J.]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

In several NAP training meetings I've learned that officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting. Where can I find this rule in RONR (12th ed.) or under what authority is this a rule?

The is no such rule in RONR. 

[Richard Brown]

There is no such rule in any of my many copies, either!

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting

It is not a rule in RONR. Many municipal governments (for example) change the basis of voting from majority of those present and voting to majority of those present, which means that abstentions have the same effect as voting 'No'. I have heard this "principle" used as the rationale to explain why that is.

[J. J.]

On 3/29/2024 at 10:07 AM, Atul Kapur said:

It is not a rule in RONR. Many municipal governments (for example) change the basis of voting from majority of those present and voting to majority of those present, which means that abstentions have the same effect as voting 'No'. I have heard this "principle" used as the rationale to explain why that is.

I am familiar with the majority of the entire membership requirement in some governmental bodies, for some, but not necessarily all, votes.  I have not heard this be a justification.  

Further, Henry M. Robert, III found such a rule requiring people to vote to be "completely unenforceable."  Further Deschler, then the US House parliamentarian, noted that a law requiring Representatives to vote was "impracticable to enforce," as cited in Parliamentary Opinions, 1982, p. 98.  

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/29/2024 at 11:52 AM, J. J. said:

a rule requiring people to vote to be "completely unenforceable." 

I was referring to a law that did not require a member to vote but changed the denominator of the vote such that an abstention has the same effect as voting No. There is a difference between that and stating that members cannot abstain and are forced to vote, which I could have made more clear.

On 3/29/2024 at 11:52 AM, J. J. said:

I have not heard this be a justification.

You may not have heard it before. You have now. 😀

Put another way, it prevents a member from allowing a motion to be adopted or lost but "washing their hands" of it by saying I didn't take a position (and therefore have no responsibility for the decision).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

In several NAP training meetings I've learned that officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting. Where can I find this rule in RONR (12th ed.) or under what authority is this a rule?

Your search in RONR will end in despair, for it is not a rule at all.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/28/2024 at 2:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

In several NAP training meetings I've learned that officials who have been elected to represent the will of constituents cannot abstain from voting.

Perhaps this is correct for particular elected bodies in particular jurisdictions, but to the extent it is, the rules in question would have to be found in applicable law.

I am certainly not aware of such a rule as a general principle. I see elected officials on various governmental bodies abstain on a somewhat regular basis.

Respectfully, I think the presenter may have been mistaken, or perhaps was trying to express that it was their personal opinion that an official who has been elected to represent the will of constituents should not abstain, unless there is a particular reason to do so, such as if the official has a "conflict of interest." That sounds like a much more reasonable position.

I'm also inclined to agree with J.J. that such a rule is rather impractical to enforce.

On 3/28/2024 at 2:51 PM, Guest Cee said:

Where can I find this rule in RONR (12th ed.) or under what authority is this a rule?

You will not find it anywhere in RONR. To the extent such a rule exists, it would exist in federal, state, or local law governing the particular elected body.

On the contrary, RONR quite clearly provides that while members have a duty to vote, they have a right to abstain and cannot be compelled to vote.

"Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote. By the same token, when an office or position is to be filled by a number of members, as in the case of a committee, or positions on a board, a member may partially abstain by voting for less than all of those for whom he is entitled to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 45:3

Edited March 29, 2024 at 09:28 PM by Josh Martin