In regards to the Ward Nelson Vote:
There are two Whatcom County Charter sections and two Whatcom County Code sections that are applicable:
Charter 2.22 "Organization":
Council action shall require at least a majority of the entire Council except where two-thirds vote is required, in which case two-thirds of the entire Council shall be necessary.
Charter 4.50 "Vacancies":
Until a successor has been elected and certified, a majority of the Council shall fill the vacancy by appointment.
Code 2.02.030 "Council vacancies - Procedures":
A. An appointment to fill a vacancy on the council shall be approved by majority vote of the council.
B. If at any time the membership of the council is reduced below that required to constitute a quorum by virtue of vacancies on the council, a majority of the remaining members may nevertheless fill the vacancies.
Code 2.02.040.F "Meetings - General rules":
F. A majority (four members) of the council shall be in attendance to constitute a quorum and shall be necessary for the transaction of the council’s business.
Based on the four sections, we can assume the following:
1. Under normal circumstances, a majority of the entire seven-member council (i.e., four "yes" votes) is required to enact council business.
2. Council vacancies are NOT normal circumstances.
3. To fill a council vacancy, all that's required is a majority of the remaining council (those who are legally allowed to vote). So:
a) If 6 council members can legally vote, then 4 "yes" votes are needed;
b) If 5 council members can legally vote, then 3 "yes" votes;
c) If 4 council members can legally vote, then 3 "yes" votes;
d) If 3 council members can legally vote, then 2 "yes" votes;
e) If 2 council members can legally vote, then 2 "yes" votes; and,
f) If 1 council member can legally vote, then 1 "yes" vote.
The only question that remains is: How many council members could legally vote to fill Bob Kelly's vacancy?
Assuming that none of the remaining six council members had been nominated, then six members could legally vote for a replacement.
HOWEVER, once Ward Nelson was nominated, he could no longer legally vote for or against himself or anyone else BECAUSE:
IN REALITY, EVERY VOTE INVOLVES EVERY CANDIDATE. THEREFORE, EVERY TIME WARD NELSON VOTED, HE VOTED FOR OR AGAINST HIMSELF AND FOR OR AGAINST EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE.
Consider the following scenario: each councilor has a single vote for just one of the candidates. If there are twenty-five candidates, a councilor can vote for just one of them. Members do not cast a "No" vote for the other candidates; members only cast a "Yes" vote for a single candidate.
So... once Ward Nelson was nominated, he could no longer cast a legal vote, leaving only 5 legal council votes, which requires a 3 vote majority. Since a number of the 25 candidates would likely have received 3 votes, council should have been able to fill the vacancy that night.
I want to thank Larry Horowitz for his contribution to this post.
As always, reader comments are very welcome!
A note to readers. Uncivil comments will be deleted from posts.
ReplyDeletePlease observe Latte's rules when posting.
I hope to clarify something here.
ReplyDeleteA member's ability to abstain is a crucial element of parliamentary procedure.
In my posting on the matter of votes, I emphasize that there are times when a valid majority for taking action is a majority of legal votes cast, not a majority of members present.
In the case of Ward Nelson on Dec 8 2009, there were six members present, so if he abstained from voting, his abstention would allow for a valid majority of the members present and voting. (for filling a vacancy)
What I mean is, if there are six members present and one abstains, then it is possible to achieve a valid majority with less than four votes, if the standing rule on the action allows it.
In the case of filling a vacancy, I believe that the prevailing standing rules that apply to vacancies allow it.