Alderman’s abstention: When “No” just isn’t brilliant enough!

During the August 26, 2025, meeting of the Branson Board of Aldermen (Board), Alderman Schulz abstained from voting on an ordinance he proposed. His original ordinance proposed an extension of the Historic Downtown Branson Community Improvement District (CID) for ten years. Alderman LeBlanc thought three years was more appropriate, and three of the other four alderpersons present agreed. The vote on the amendment was three to two, with Aldermen Schultz and Lucas voting “No.” When they took the vote on the amended ordinance instead of simply voting “No,” as he did on the amendment, Schulz voted to “Abstain.”

When the mayor inquired about his reason for abstaining, Schutz gave none. The video of the meeting showing Schultz during the discussion on his abstention, to the Ole Seagull, was reminiscent of the arrogant General Douglas MacArthur-type stare in newspapers and magazines during the Korean conflict when someone dared question his approach.

As a nine-year-old boy with two cousins, Larry and Teddy, in the U.S. Marine Corps serving in Korea, all the Ole Seagull knew at the time was that MacArthur looked “mean.” He was glad they were in the Marine Corps and not in the Army. It wasn’t until years later, after joining the Marine Corps, that he realized they were actually under MacArthur’s command and the price in wounded and dead that command cost, both the Army and Marine Corps.

Schulz could have voted “No,” but, in an Ole Seagull’s opinion, being who he is and operating as he does, he had to “Abstain.” Why didn’t he simply vote “No” as he did on the amendment? Obviously, no one can read his mind, but the Ole Seagull believes it was a combination of factors.

The first being that, like MacArthur in Korea and his arrogant approach to the entry of China into the Korean War, he seemingly believes his way is the only way. And second, like MacArthur, he can’t resist the opportunity to show the room how brilliant he is, this time not only by introducing another dilatory obstructionist tactic, but also by the arrogant manner in which he did so.

The Ole Seagull fully realizes that these are two drastically different situations. Still, there is a similarity in the thought processes of the two principals involved.

During that meeting and while voting on the CID issue, Schulz made a point of stating that for an ordinance in a Class 4 city to pass, state law requires favorable votes from a majority of the elected board members. Why didn’t he simply quote the words, “no bill shall become an ordinance unless on its final passage a majority of the members elected to the board shall vote for it,” from Section 2-68 of the Branson Municipal Code? To an Ole Seagull, the answer is evident and consistent with the way he operates.

The net result is that nothing becomes an ordinance unless, on its final passage, a majority of the members elected to the board vote in favor of it. That requires four votes from the Board. However, if there is a tie among the aldermen, three “Yes” votes and three “No” votes, the Code provides that the mayor, also a member of the Board, will vote to break the tie. However, the current wording of the Code neuters the mayor’s right to break the tie if an alderman “abstains.”

Unless an ordinance states otherwise, in Roberts Rules of Order and elsewhere, it is generally accepted that an abstention is not counted as a vote. That leads to the situation where, in the above example, if instead of voting “No,” one alderman “abstains,” the result is three “Yes” votes, two “No” votes, and one “Abstention.” There is no tie vote, and the mayor does not get to vote.

The good news is that Section 2-77 of the Branson Municipal Code can easily be rewritten to eliminate this type of situation. Here’s an example of how one Missouri municipality did it:

“Section 2-77 Method of Voting: It is the duty of every member to attend meetings if not excused and to vote on questions before the Board, unless such member has a conflict of interest, in which case the member shall abstain. If a member believes they have a conflict of interest, they must state it, and the minutes will record the statement. In voting on ordinances (first and/or second reading), the vote of any member of the Board of Aldermen who is absent at a meeting, or who is present but when a matter is put to a roll call vote, abstains or otherwise refuses or fails to vote for any reason, shall be considered as a “No” vote for the purposes of determining whether a tie exists on the question under Section 2-64 of the Branson Municipal Code.”