A Decision not to make a Decision

According to The Official Roberts Rule of Order website:

The phrase “abstention votes” is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an “abstention vote.”

According to the New Hartford Public Library by-laws:

8.1 The conduct of the Board’s affairs shall be in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised when they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these bylaws.

A search on the web turned up the website of Adams Kessler, a corporate and litigation counsel to community associations throughout California, who has a whole webpage discussing abstentions according to Robert's Rule of Order.

Board President Romano says in her Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch:

No board member “refused” to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

However, according to the website cited above:

Abstention Defined.

When it comes time for directors to vote on an issue, a director [in this case trustee] may vote "yes" or "no." If a director abstains from voting, that means the director has not voted. An abstention is a non-vote, a decision not to make a decision. (Robert's Rules of Order, 10th ed., p 43.)

Negative Impact of an Abstention. An abstention may have the practical effect of a "no" vote since the motion may fail for lack of sufficient "yes" votes.

In effect, by abstaining, the motion to say the pledge was actually voted down. There were eleven (11) board members present and only two or three voted in the affirmative; not enough for a majority affirmative vote. The vote has to be recorded in the minutes as a 'nay' to saying the Pledge.

Adams Kesler continues:

When to Abstain.

Whenever a director believes he/she has a conflict of interest, the director should abstain from voting on the issue and make sure his/her abstention is noted in the minutes. (Robert's Rules, 10th ed., p 394.)

The other reason a director might abstain is that he/she believes there was insufficient information for making a decision. Otherwise, directors should cast votes on all issues put before them. Failure to do so could be deemed a breach of their fiduciary duties.

So why did the majority abstain? Conflict of interest or insufficient information in response to saying the Pledge? Or was it just more of the same rudeness and opposition that has been shown to Mr. Wiatr since he first was appointed trustee; opposition that once again backfired on this board which is made up of known professionals in the Town of New Hartford?

Board President Romano says in her Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch:

The board abstained from voting, leaving the decision in the hands of the president. An email was sent from the president to the entire board within one hour of the meeting clarifying the abstentions and stating that all future meetings would indeed start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

According to Roberts Rule of Order, unless the by-laws specifically give the power to the president to override a board vote, the "nay" vote stands. The New Hartford Public Library by-laws have no such wording. What makes Ms. Romano think that she has the power to override the vote?

The library board can make up any excuse they want for their misbehavior. It was clearly in an effort to go against anything that Trustee Wiatr brings to the table. Bottom line...there is no excuse for what took place at the December 14, 2011 library board meeting. For a library director to state that saying the Pledge "is a waste of time" and a trustee to state "it is only for show" is shameful no matter how you look at it.

Library trustees are appointed by the town board not only to carry out the goals of the library but also to represent the residents of New Hartford who fund this library with their tax dollars; we would venture to guess that the majority of New Hartford taxpayers do not feel that the Pledge is "a waste of time".

Sitting in the audience on December 14, 2011, it appeared that the entire "abstention scenario" was "choreographed" by some members of the library board prior to the meeting. Unfortunately, even though the Library Trustees should have waltzed through the discussion on saying the Pledge; the majority of the library trustees chose to do the hokey-pokey!

The next scheduled meeting of the trustees will be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday, January 18, 2012, at Butler Hall.