|
I've been reluctant to comment on this issue since I'm (obviously) new to TB procedural matters, and of course I haven't read the entire history of TB since 2001 to familiarize myself with developments. Plus, it's a touch OT from this thread.
However, I will say that last week when Randy invited me to participate on TalkBoard, I read through the TalkBoard guidelines as currently implemented. As I read the guidelines, I distinctly remember reading the section of the guidelines in question and understanding them to mean that an abstension would NOT count as an active vote and that therefore the threshold would be lowered. Obviously, it's not my place to interpret the TB guidelines (it's my understanding that's one of the president's duties), but I do want to point out that the current guidelines can be ambiguous and understood both ways. I would support a vote to clarify this issue, and at this point, I would lean towards agreeing with the view my fellow TB member B747-437B has expressed. |
These are the ballot choices that participating Talkboard members may select from, per our quidelines:
TalkBoard members may register their vote of yes, no or abstain while the voting period is open. A motion shall pass if two-thirds of TalkBoard members participating in that vote vote ‘yes.’ When folks see votes go one way when they'd prefer them to go another, it's natural to question the voting procedures, and to prefer procedures which make it easier to implement change. But as Dovster observes it's important to take the long view, procedures we adopt will be applied to all future decisions that we make (unless and until those procedures are revised). And changed procedures that help a given motion pass now may make it easier for changes current proponents do not favor in the future. THe procedures as they exist have a high bar for consensus before the Talkboard recommends changes to Flyertalk. That's the bias for a reason. |
Originally Posted by gleff
(Post 14304024)
The guidelines do not even clearly state that voting for or voting against are participating. Because it's self-evident. .
Originally Posted by gleff
(Post 14304024)
Abstaining is participating
Originally Posted by gleff
(Post 14304030)
Here we disagree, but the Talkboard has the ability under the guidelines, with 2/3rds of those casting ballots, to change this.
Of course, if two-thirds of TalkBoard favors either side of this argument then the matter is immaterial. However, if two-thirds does not favor one side or the other, then I feel that the decision of 2005 should continue in place. I do not, as you know, have access to the private TalkBoard forum, but you do. As I have never known you to be a liar, I will take your word on the answers to the following questions: When the new Guidelines were voted upon, was the question of changing the status quo and reversing the 2005 decision specifically discussed? In other words, were the TalkBoard members aware that the Guidelines would have this effect? In any case, whether a new vote is to re-affirm the 2005 decision or to overturn it, it is better than leaving the situation unclear and I applaud those TB members who have said that they want a vote to clarify the situation. |
If abstination means a no vote, then it should be eliminated as redundant. To support the current way of having two ways to vote no is a political stance and nothing else.
There should be no shame in saying that you do not support a motion. To keep the status of a TB member, they are required to vote. If a motion cannot garner enough support, it should be voted no. If it garners enough support, it can then be implemented. Politics and "shades of No" should have no place in FT. It is black and white. Isn't it? You don't have to agree with me... In fact, I'd be surprised if you did. But a motion removing the grey couldn't hurt, right? Some may see this as a nuisance, and it may be. But better a nuisance that can be straightened out when the outcome of a vote isn't questioned. There's no problem in having dirty laundry. But people will watch how you decide to clean it up, and really... how hard could that be. In all, I don't really care either way. But feel that to have integrity, as elected representitives, we have to rise to a higer standard. And if that means discussing and clearing the mud, then so be it. |
Originally Posted by seanthepilot
(Post 14304272)
If abstination means a no vote, then it should be eliminated as redundant. To support the current way of having two ways to vote no is a political stance and nothing else.
The ability to abstain was kept in order for a TB member not to be subjected to the rule that three failures to vote could get him removed from office. By abstaining, he was given the same practical effect of not voting but demonstrated his willingness to be part of the TalkBoard process. |
Originally Posted by seanthepilot
(Post 14304272)
If abstination means a no vote, then it should be eliminated as redundant. To support the current way of having two ways to vote no is a political stance and nothing else.
I expect that the TalkBoard will be able to agree on one of these two changes, but it may take a while, as usual. |
I am supporting a change to a simple majority - if such a proposal is made. In the absence of that, removing the abstain option seems redundant. However, if we need clarity, I will be supporting that also.
|
Originally Posted by Jenbel
(Post 14303946)
It already has
Those rules have also been superceded by the 2008 guidelines: Not sure why that is so difficult to understand and why you think that there must be another rule hidden away somewhere. Nothing prior to 2008 applies. The only thing which applies is what is said in the 2008 guidelines. Now, that seems to be open to interpretation. To me, it's pretty unambiguous. You apply the rules as written. If they are unclear, then you follow Roberts. Some of you seem to be relying on experience from other committees etc. I'm not sure what standing that experience has, as there isn't any mention of it in the TB guidelines. There may also have to be differences between committees which meet physically, in real life, and a group which meets electronically. But if you really want to play the game: Find me the rule which says that abstaining isn't considered participation. Anyone have Roberts handy? I presume all of our TB members will be able to quote me the relevant sections, since you must all be familiar with Roberts ;) From the Official Robert's Rules Website FAQ's Question 6: Do abstention votes count? Answer: 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." In the usual situation, where either a majority vote or a two-thirds vote is required, abstentions have absolutely no effect on the outcome of the vote since what is required is either a majority or two thirds of the votes cast. On the other hand, if the vote required is a majority or two thirds of the members present, or a majority or two thirds of the entire membership, an abstention will have the same effect as a "no" vote. Even in such a case, however, an abstention is not a vote. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 387, l. 7-13; p. 388, l. 3-6; p. 390, l. 13-24; see also p.66 of RONR In Brief.] From Robert's 1915: When a quorum [64] is present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is in order, except those mentioned in [48], which require a two-thirds vote. A plurality never adopts a motion nor elects any one to office, unless by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. On a tie vote the motion is lost, and the chair, if a member of the assembly, may vote to make it a tie unless the vote is by ballot. The chair cannot, however, vote twice, first to make a tie and then give the casting vote. In case of an appeal [21], though the question is, "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly?" a tie vote, even though his vote made it a tie, sustains the chair, upon the principle that the decision of the chair can be reversed only by a majority, including the chair if a member of the assembly. It is a general rule that no one can vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest. Yet this does not prevent a member from voting for himself for any office or other position, as voting for a delegate or for a member of a committee; nor from voting when other members are included with him in the motion, even though he has a personal or pecuniary interest in the result, as voting on charges preferred against more than one person at a time, or on a resolution to increase the salaries of all the members. If a member could in no case vote on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for a legislature to vote salaries to members, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them. By simply including the names of all the members, except those of their own faction, in a resolution preferring charges against them, the minority could get all the power in their own hands, were it not for the fact that in such a case all the members are entitled to vote regardless of their personal interest. A sense of delicacy usually prevents a member from exercising this right of voting in matters affecting himself except where his vote might affect the result. After charges are preferred against a member, and the assembly has ordered him to appear for trial, he is theoretically under arrest, and is deprived of all rights of membership and therefore cannot vote until his case is disposed of. A member has the right to change his vote up to the time the vote is finally announced. After that, he can make the change only by permission of the assembly, which may be given by general consent; that is, by no member's objecting when the chair inquires if any one objects. If objection is made, a motion may be made to grant the permission, which motion is undebatable. While it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on the question to express it by his vote, yet he cannot be compelled to do so. He may prefer to abstain from voting, though he knows the effect is the same as if he voted on the prevailing side. And this is what Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure has to say: Sec. 516. Presumptions as to Effect of Members Not Voting 1. There has been considerable discussion by the courts as to presumptions concerning the effect of members not voting. There appear to be two distinct situations: (a) When only a majority of the legal votes cast is required, failure to vote or the casting of a blank ballot reduces the number of affirmative votes necessary to take an action. Under this situation failure to vote reduces the vote required to take the action and so has in part the same effect as a "yes" vote. The members not voting are sometimes said to be presumed to agree to abide by the decision of those voting. (b) When a set number of votes or a majority or other proportion of the entire membership or of the members present is required, failure to vote does not reduce the vote required but reduces the pool of voters available to take the action and, therefore, has in part the same effect as a "no" vote. It would not seem to be correct to say that members not voting are presumed to be voting in the negative though in this situation that is the effect of the failure to vote. |
Originally Posted by jerry a. laska
(Post 14305941)
Someone mention Roberts?
From the Official Robert's Rules Website FAQ's |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 14306421)
This is a minor enough matter that nobody needs to get too invested in any position, so I expect some sort of resolution.
|
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
(Post 14302222)
Does anyone else see the irony that there's now a heated debate on what "abstain" & "is" is on a motion that had previously passed & the only reason it was up at all was due to a technicality, and then due to the technicality it allowed TB members to change their previous votes, and now everyone's duking it out on what abstain means????
You all can go back to the drawing board (no offense to koko). I'm just popping popcorn, getting a soda, and settling back into a comfy chair to watch. Well, given this is FT, maybe it should be a pour a glass or bottle of wine ;) Cheers. Best regards, William R. Sanders Online Guest Feedback Coordinator Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide [email protected] |
Originally Posted by B747-437B
(Post 14303989)
FACT - The rules as presently written (2008) have the effect of ABSTAIN having the same value as NO. However, this IMHO is not the correct spirit that it was intended to be. I will be proposing that TB clarify and correct this point. If it is the correct spirit then we can reiterate that instead.
You voted no in the first motion A, but then said in the subsequent you voted yes because if B followed A then you felt compelled to follow B. I actually gave you kudos on that, not just because I was for A & B but for your following through regardless. But then you were given a 2nd chance to revisit that & couldn't quite figure out your conscience & were thinking dif things, so instead of sticking w/ your above decision, you were going to 'abstain' - which implied a neutral stance. I didn't agree given your earlier decision, but then thought ok, he's going to be neutral, which is what most people think of when they think of abstain, or the person can't decide one way or the other. Quoting you: "I am however choosing to abstain on this vote as I do not want to be the one that either tips the vote in favour of restrictions (against my conscience) or against restrictions (against the will of the majority)." But (here's my problem w/ the above): then later you said multiple times things like (paraphrasing) let the stoning begin or the vilification or join the dark side or ire, join me & gleff, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc (which you also did in the first thread). All of which did NOT imply a neutral stance at all but implied a NO. Truly, if you were going to remain neutral, and I mean this in the nicest way - then you should have kept your mouth shut after you posted your first statement, vs going on about how basically you had decided No & everyone was going to go after you & gleff & others when they joined you in the No. There was no 'abstain/neutral' at that point. So while I appreciate your now finding the 2008 rules - which resumably you & other TB members know since you are - oh yeah, TB members - have the effect of being a No (thanks for telling us something we've already figured out :rolleyes:), your earlier golly gee, I have to abstain, implying a neutral stance is a bit talk to the hand, and your gosh geesh, we need to sort this out given your subsequent editorial comments is a bit absurd. Probably the only good thing that's come out of the MR discussion/run restriction debacle (and at this stage, yup, debacle pretty much fits) is the fact that TB might actually sort out the abstain issue. And then we can eventually get back to the other issue. Cheers. |
Originally Posted by Dovster
(Post 14304067)
As I have never known you to be a liar, I will take your word on the answers to the following questions:
When the new Guidelines were voted upon, was the question of changing the status quo and reversing the 2005 decision specifically discussed? In other words, were the TalkBoard members aware that the Guidelines would have this effect? |
FWIW, I agree with gleff's interpretation. As far as I'm concerned, casting a vote to abstain is a form of participating. While a vote to abstain might have the same result as a no vote, I think there's still a difference. The only similarity is that neither vote contributes to a 2/3 super majority; the member's stance, though, is different with an "abstain" vote vs. "no" vote.
And I'd prefer not to lower the standards for a motion to be passed. Changes should only be made when a super majority of the board feels the motion is best for FT, IMO. |
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
(Post 14307653)
Truly, if you were going to remain neutral, and I mean this in the nicest way - then you should have kept your mouth shut
After some review and research of legislative systems (thanks to jerry a. laska for getting this started), I am leaning towards suggestions for the removal or renaming of the "abstain" option in lieu of modifying the threshold for passage of a vote. The intention of a supermajority requirement is for a supermajority to assent. Anyone who wishes to "abstain" may do so by simply not voting. The "Abstain" vote option however is confusingly named. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:22 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.