Court Opinion

ID: 9561507
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:10:53.060817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:50.659281
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Justice,
dissenting.
This appeal of an administrative board’s decision has an importance far beyond the right to continue to teach in Fremont County School District No. 38 as presented by Peggy D. Forbis. This court empirically determines the effect of an abstention from voting when a vote is called on a duly presented motion.1
This decision determines that an abstention automatically constitutes a negative vote on the pending issue; at least for governmental bodies for which a statute or rule requires the affirmative vote of the entire membership whether or not present, and, if present, whether or not voting. See, e.g., Wyo.Stat. § 21-3-105 (1992) (regarding school district board of trustees) and Wyo.Stat. § 15-1-115 (1992) (regarding city adoption of ordinances).
Underlying our recognition of this result, the basic issue is whether officials have a right to abstain from voting to escape responsibility for their conduct in handling *1066the business of the governmental instrumentality for which they serve as an appointed or elected board member. A particularly abrasive circumstance develops for a member of a school district board of trustees or a member of a city council when a statutory requirement exists for the affirmative vote of a majority of qualified elected members to take any action or adopt an ordinance.
The applicable statutes governing this subject for the school district board of trustees include:
The board of trustees of a school district shall be the governing body of the school district. A majority of the number of members of the board of trustees shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the board of trustees. No action of the board of trustees shall be valid unless such action shall receive the approval of the majority of the members elected to the board of trustees.
Wyo.Stat. § 21-3-105 (emphasis added).
The trustees of each school district shall, within ten (10) days after receiving notification of their election and before assuming the duties of their offices, appear before some person qualified to administer oaths and take an oath for the faithful performance of their duties as required by law.
Wyo.Stat. § 21-3-106 (1992).
Any member or officer of a board of trustees of a school district who willfully fails, refuses, or neglects to perform any duty imposed upon him by the provisions of this code [§§ 21-1-101 through 21-13-721] shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not more than thirty (30) days or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Wyo.Stat. § 21-3-124 (1992).
Significant case law has been cited by the litigants in this case which develops one or the other of two broad concepts for determining the result created by the abstention of any board member. The posture taken by this court accepts the principle that an abstaining vote, by necessity, is a negative vote, in particular for decisions where a majority of the qualified members are required to vote in the affirmative to take action. Cases cited to accommodate this view include: Prosser v. Village of Fox Lake, 91 Ill.2d 389, 63 Ill.Dec. 396, 438 N.E.2d 134, 136 (1982); and State ex rel. Stewart v. King, 562 S.W.2d 704 (Mo.App.1978); see also J.R. Kemper, Annotation, Abstention From Voting of Member of Municipal Council Present At Session As Affecting Requisite Voting Majority, 63 A.L.R.3d 1072, §§ 7 and 8 (1975).
I would have taken the alternative posture, which is to assess an effect to the abstaining voting member as joining with the voting majority as affirmative or negative in finite action on the motion. The point of my departure is a desired refusal to permit defeat of motions by abstention. Support in this case can be found in the text of school board operation Policy No. 002.514, which states a right to a recorded positive or negative vote only and not an abstention.
To pass, any motion must receive three affirmative votes — that is, approval by the majority of all board members. Votes shall be taken by a voice or by a show of hands. All actions taken on motions passed or denied in the board meeting shall be recorded as unanimous votes except at the request of a member, the chairman shall call the roll and the yeas and nays shall be recorded, including the vote of the chairman.
This rule, that an abstention demonstrates agreement to join the majority in the absence of a call for a recorded individual vote, also comes supported with responsible and established authority. Seeley v. City of Bridgeport, 53 Conn. 1, 22 A. 1017 (1885); Rushville Gas Co. v. City of Rushville, 121 Ind. 206, 23 N.E. 72 (1889); Montgomery v. Claybrooks, 213 Ky. 493, 281 S.W. 469 (1926); Ray v. Armstrong, 140 Ky. 800, 131 S.W. 1039 (1910); Bonsack & Pearce v. School Dist. of Marceline, 226 Mo.App. 1238, 49 S.W.2d 1085 (1932); State ex rel. Young v. Yates, 19 Mont. 239, 47 P. 1004 (1897); Northwest*1067ern Bell Tel. Co. v. Board of Com’rs of City of Fargo, 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1973).
Without reviewing the injustice claimed by this appellant, certainty in Wyoming administrative functions is highly desirable, including the recognition of a mandatory duty of the member to vote in every case-(absent a conflict of interest). I would hold when a violation of that duty occurs, there is a recognized vote established to follow the majority. See Seeley, 22 A. 1017, which also establishes a duty to vote with its long and well-stated history. See also State ex rel. Drummond v. Dillon, 125 Ind. 65, 25 N.E. 136 (1890); Edwards v. Mettler, 268 Minn. 472, 129 N.W.2d 805 (1964) (affirmative duty to reject, violation of duty to vote was acquiescence); and Mullins v. Eveland, 234 S.W.2d 639 (Mo.App.1950).
However, this court takes the opposite tact, and we now establish community responsibility for the abstaining member to have actually cast a vote in the negative for the pending motion. Responsibility for a board member’s abstention is, therefore, equally defined as with those who forthrightly vote for or against the motion then pending. In colloquial terms, sitting on one’s hands means being counted to have cast a negative vote.
Within this litigation, in the absence of the existence of this now determined rule, I would have reversed the summary judgment on the basis that the non-voters followed the majority created by those members who did vote. For future conduct of business, the rule that the abstaining voter votes “no,” at least where a determined number of affirmative votes is required, is equally satisfactory. By this decision, the board and the electorate should clearly understand that no longer will the subterfuge of clouded intent be created by abstention.
I dissent in believing that injustice to this litigant has occurred, but recognize the benefit of a determined rule which is now established by this court’s decision.

. The question of an abstention for a conflict of interest reason is not presented and will not be discussed. C/. Wyo. Const, art. 3, § 46.