One of the things we enjoy about public body meetings is that nothing can be taken for granted, not even on issues that many observers and insiders believe to be slam dunk positives. 

Case in point. During Monday night’s Minden City Council meeting, council members were asked to approve Hizzoner Nick Cox’s recommendation that Brian Williams be named Minden’s new fire chief. No problem. Plenty of experience and knowledge, lots of respect.

Williams got the nod by a near-unanimous decision. On the record, the vote was four yes, zero no, one abstention. It’s the abstention, buzzed in by District B council member Levon “Charlie” Thomas, we found a little puzzling. 

And we apparently will remain puzzled since Mr. Thomas refused to give a reason for that particular move. We hear he told a reporter, “Maybe later,” when asked why the abstention. We’ve been around politicians long enough to know “maybe later” carries one of two meanings: buzz off, or I don’t have to explain.

For grins, we took a look at several reasons a public official might feel the need to do the abstention sidestep. It’s our understanding that an abstention, if a quorum is present, is effectively a “no” vote since it is a no-vote. One source said abstaining from a vote could be due to a conflict of interest or to protest. Can’t see a conflict unless our councilperson was a candidate for the position. 

We talked to a couple of friends (yes, we have that many) who have held public office to get their take on abstentions. Both said a person might abstain if they don’t know what they’re doing and don’t want anyone else to know they don’t know; the voter hasn’t the capacity to make a decision; or somebody forgot to tell the voter whether to vote yes or no, so the voter punts.

We understand the individual who abstains is not required, under Roberts Rules of Order (Minden’s parliamentary guide), to give a reason for his/her decision. OK. We’ll accept that, parliamentarily speaking. But the representative should not keep from the represented his/her reasons for any actions taken on their behalf. 

Explanations should be fairly simple. We watched as past councilors voted against even the most simple issues without explanation. In nearly all cases, the answer to why no reasons were given was the ol’ “I don’t have to and you can’t make me.” 

We don’t believe this council will be following that path. Even in the early stages of this administration, there’s evidence that officials are wanting to forget the old and move on with the new. We hope everyone aboard the governmental wagon understands how much we, the great unwashed, like knowing how and why on issues. We won’t abstain from saying so. 

– Pat Culverhouse