Abstaining from a vote

[Guest Teri Riggs]

If a voting member abstains from a vote because of the topic or because of an individual named in the vote, does that mean that this voting member must abstain from all all future voting that involves this individual or similar topic area?

[Trina]

If a voting member abstains from a vote because of the topic or because of an individual named in the vote, does that mean that this voting member must abstain from all all future voting that involves this individual or similar topic area?

No.

Not according to RONR, anyway -- any such requirement would have to come from your own rules. And, in practice, how would you define 'similar'? That's hard to nail down, if your organization is trying to enforce such a rule. Moreover, there is no requirement in RONR for members to abstain from voting in such circumstances in the first place, although RONR recommends that members not vote on issues on which they have a direct personal interest not in common with the other members (RONR p. 394).

edited to add page citation

[Robert B Fish]

Going even further, the right of members to vote and determine for themselves when to abstain from an issue is so strong that this member could vote in future questions that are IDENTICAL to the one on which he/she abstained earlier. In other words, a future question arises about reconsidering, rescinding, amending, or reaffirming (if appropriate) the question, a member who abstained during the earlier vote could vote in the later one.

Also, note that a member cannot be compelled to reveal why he abstained and the minutes would not record that a member abstained unless ordered by the assembly.

-Bob

[Guest Teri Riggs]

Going even further, the right of members to vote and determine for themselves when to abstain from an issue is so strong that this member could vote in future questions that are IDENTICAL to the one on which he/she abstained earlier. In other words, a future question arises about reconsidering, rescinding, amending, or reaffirming (if appropriate) the question, a member who abstained during the earlier vote could vote in the later one.

Also, note that a member cannot be compelled to reveal why he abstained and the minutes would not record that a member abstained unless ordered by the assembly.

-Bob

[Guest Nancy N.]

I always thought there is no restriction on the right to vote when there is a conflict of interest, but the conflicted member must remove an article of clothing for each such vote.

Whew! There are so many charmingly plausible-sounding myths out there.

[David A Foulkes]

I always thought there is no restriction on the right to vote when there is a conflict of interest, but the conflicted member must remove an article of clothing for each such vote.

I think that requirement must be included in the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

I always thought there is no restriction on the right to vote when there is a conflict of interest, but the conflicted member must remove an article of clothing for each such vote.

Whew! There are so many charmingly plausible-sounding myths out there.

Sounds like a rule for Foulkesian terminology. With all the drinking involved, the members may not object to the requirement.

[David A Foulkes]

Sounds like a rule for Foulkesian terminology. With all the drinking involved, the members may not object to the requirement.

Though I am not clear (still researching) which motion it would be covered under, I'm of the opinion that, taken to its inevitable conclusion it would be a special type of Main Motion (bringing business before the assembly), yielding only to a motion to Recess (§20) and Lay on the Table (§17 - To interrupt the pending business so as to permit doing something else immediately), in that order.

[J. J.]

Though I am not clear (still researching) which motion it would be covered under, I'm of the opinion that, taken to its inevitable conclusion it would be a special type of Main Motion (bringing business before the assembly), yielding only to a motion to Recess (§20) and Lay on the Table (§17 - To interrupt the pending business so as to permit doing something else immediately), in that order.

I think dress, or lack thereof, is a matter of decorum.

There actually are rules in Jefferson regarding wearing a hat, which were based on British parliamentary practice (which were only changed in the 1990's).

[David A Foulkes]

I think dress, or lack thereof, is a matter of decorum.

There actually are rules in Jefferson regarding wearing a hat, which were based on British parliamentary practice (which were only changed in the 1990's).

No doubt a Randy Newman fan.

[J. J.]

No doubt a Randy Newman fan.

No, though I did enjoy singing "Short People" to a friend of mine that is 5' 2". What's she going to do, slash my ankles?