Commissioners debate new recusal and abstention guidance in proposed rules

A contentious thread of the Sept. 29 rules work study centered on proposed edits to voting, recusal and abstention language. Scott Diener said change #22 would add four criteria the commission should publicly consider when a commissioner requests recusal, and provide guidance on when refusal to vote may be appropriate. Diener argued the public has a right to know why a member abstains and suggested some jurisdictions count abstentions as no votes.

Several commissioners pushed back, citing Robert's Rules and volunteer-rights considerations. One commissioner said their research found no explicit Robert's Rules requirement to explain abstentions and asked staff to ensure local rules do not impose new obligations beyond parliamentary authority. Diener responded that the commission may add clarifying rules as long as they do not conflict with Robert's Rules; he said staff would review the matter further during deliberations.

Commissioners also questioned how "inability to be impartial" would be determined if raised by another member and asked staff to describe a process for challenge and defense.