Under RCW 35A.12.100, the mayor in a mayor-council code city has the power to veto ordinances passed by the city council, although a mayor's veto may be overridden by a majority of the council plus one. This is not a "line item veto," but rather a veto power over an entire ordinance only.  The veto power extends only to ordinances and does not apply to resolutions or motions.

No. The mayor's duties and powers are specified in RCW 35.27.160 and this statute does not provide for a mayoral veto power.

In the absence of specific statutory authorization the mayor cannot exercise this power. Therefore, the mayor in a town does not have a veto power over council ordinances, resolutions or motions. It is necessary for the mayor to sign municipal ordinances, but this is simply a ministerial action and there is no discretion in his or her exercise of this power.

.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, an abstention does not count as a vote, does not affect the voting result, and does not destroy the quorum. In this case, since a majority of the quorum voted in favor of the motion, it would pass. Where a certain number of votes is required for an action, an abstention, which does not count as a vote, may prevent the action from passing. If a council has not adopted Robert's Rules of Order, it will be necessary to adopt its own rules regarding abstentions.

Yes. Court cases in this state have indicated that a member of a decision-making body who familiarizes herself with the record may vote on a matter, even if she was absent at the public hearing regarding the matter. See Johnston v. Grays Harbor County, 14 Wn. App. 378 (1975); Bowing v. Board of Trustees, 85 Wn.2d 300 (1975).

No. Until the councilmember resigns, there is no vacancy to fill. Once there is a vacancy, the resigning councilmember will have resigned and no longer would have a vote.

The Attorney General has concluded (AGO 1978 No. 20) that a city council may not appoint someone to succeed a resigning member until the effective date of the anticipated resignation.

The answer depends, in part, on whether proxy voting is allowed by the body's rules. However, even if authorized, it is not clear how proxy voting would be viewed by the courts.  State law does not address voting by proxy. Indeed, state law does not address council or board procedures at all, leaving it up to those bodies to adopt their own rules for the conduct of meetings.

An "old" attorney general opinion, AGO 51-53 No. 283, concluded that proxy voting by a school district board, subject to open meetings requirements, is not allowed.  But that opinion also relied upon statutory requirements applying to school district boards regarding attendance at meetings. 

Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (10th ed., 2000) states at §45:

It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a legal meeting . . . Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws.  Such possible exceptions include . . . (b) proxy voting.

*   *   *   *   *

Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless the laws of the state in which the society is incorporated require it, or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it.  Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required, because proxy voting in incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly in which membership is individual, personal, and nontransferrable.

If the council or board has not adopted a rule expressly authorizing proxy voting, it should not be allowed in a council or board vote.  However, we recommend against a council or board authorizing proxy voting.

For example, if a council vote is 2-1 in favor of a motion with 5 members present, and two members abstain, does the motion fail? If we assume that the city follows Robert's Rules of Order, the motion passes. The basic principles in Robert's concerning abstentions are as follows:

Abstentions do not count as a vote. Rather it is the absence of one.

An abstention does not affect the voting result.

A member has a right to abstain and cannot be compelled to abstain.

A member has an obligation to abstain if he or she has a direct personal interest in the matter being voted on.

In this case, a majority of those who voted were in favor of the motion and so it passed. There was a quorum that voted on the issue. This is not the case where a state law requires that a certain number of affirmative votes are required to enact the motion. If, for example, a state law requires three affirmative votes (in the case of a five-member council) to adopt, then the matter would not have passed because an abstention does not count as an affirmative vote.

See Robert's Rules of Order Web site which has a question on this issue. Also, see Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised, Chapter 13, §45.