Camarillo City Council
AGENDA REPORT
Date: October 7, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
From: Greg Ramirez, City Manager
Submitted by: Carrie Weal, City Clerk
Subject: City Council Policy 1.05 - Voting Procedures for Non-Conflict Abstention Votes
BACKGROUND
In December 1988, the City Council adopted City Council Policy 1.05 which established guidelines for conducting council meetings (the “Policy”). The Policy included a non- conflict abstention provision which was last reviewed in 2008. A copy of the 2008 Agenda Report is included as “Attachment 2.” Section G.3 of the Policy provides that non-conflict abstentions in the voting process are treated as “aye” votes. At the time, the reasoning for counting non-conflict abstentions as an “aye” vote was to discourage such abstentions and to provide for a resolution of tie votes.
Councilmember Martinez-Bravo requested that Policy 1.05 be referred to the Policy Committee to review how non-conflict abstentions are counted. The Policy Committee discussed that the current non-conflict abstention provision may not reflect a Councilmember’s true intention when abstaining. Members may choose to voluntarily abstain for reasons such as insufficient information, unresolved concerns, or a desire for neutrality. Counting all non-conflict abstentions as “aye” votes could misrepresent a Councilmember’s position and impact the Council’s consideration of an item when it is evenly split. Accordingly, the Policy Committee determined that the Council should discuss and determine whether to amend the Policy concerning how non-conflict abstentions are handled for voting purposes.
DISCUSSION
Abstention may occur voluntarily or involuntarily due to an actual or potential conflict of interest pursuant to the Political Reform Act (Govt C §§81000–91014) (“Act”). Conflicts may arise under the Act for real property interest, gifts, sources of income, and investment or positions held in a business entity. When they arise, the Act mandates that the conflicted member identify the conflict of interest, leave the room, and otherwise abstain
City Council Policy 1.05
October 7, 2025
from voting (i.e., conflict abstentions). The Act provides that conflict abstentions do not count towards meeting a quorum for the item in discussion. While California law establishes the legal processes for a conflict abstention, it does not govern non-conflict abstentions and allows great flexibility in allowing cities to control how those abstentions are treated.
A non-conflict abstention in the voting process occurs when a member of the Council is present and voluntarily declines to vote for or against a motion/proposal but has no legal requirement to do so.
There are several recognized ways in which non-conflict abstentions can be addressed, which will impact how a vote is recorded.
Common Law Rule: This rule has its origins in English law and provides that voluntary abstentions are considered acquiescence with the majority vote and, therefore should be recorded as a concurrence with such majority.
For example, in a five-member body, a 2-2 vote with one voluntary abstention means that the motion fails because the absence of a majority renders the abstention a non-vote. In a five-member body, a vote of 3-1 in favor with one abstention means that the item carries with a final vote of four “ayes,” and one “no” as the abstention vote is considered an “aye” with the majority.
Traditional Rule: The Traditional Rule, followed in both Roberts Rules of Order and Rosenberg’s Rules of Procedure, treats abstentions simply as non-votes in all cases.
For example, in a five-member body, a 2-2 vote with one abstention means that the motion fails. In a five-member body, a vote of 3-1 in favor with one abstention means that the item carries with a final vote of three “ayes,” one “no,” and one “abstention.” Note, the Council adopted Rosenberg’s Rules of Procedure in 2012 for its procedures but currently has an exception for how it treats non-conflict abstentions.
Affirmative Majority Rule: This rule counts voluntarily abstentions as an affirmative vote only when such vote is needed for taking action. Rather than not being counted, or always being counted with the majority, an abstention is counted to create a majority of “ayes” when the vote is split.
For example, in a five-member body, a 2-2 vote with one abstention means that the motion passes because the vote is split causing the abstention to count as an “aye” as its necessary for the body to take action. In a five-member body, a vote of 3-1 in favor with one abstention means that the item carries with a final vote of three “ayes,” one “no,” and one abstention (the abstention is counted as a “no” because the votes were not split).
City Council Policy 1.05
October 7, 2025
Non-Conflict Abstentions: During the Policy Committee discussion, Councilmember Tennessen suggested consideration of Non-Conflict Abstentions. This rule states that abstentions that are not due to a legal conflict of interest shall be recorded as “Present” rather than “Aye.” A “Present” vote does not count toward the majority required for passage but acknowledges the member’s participation in the meeting. This is similar in nature to the Traditional Rule in item 2 that is recommended by Rosenberg rules and Robert’s Rules, but the minutes would reflect the Councilmember as “Present” versus “Abstain” and will not impact on the vote count as they are consider non votes.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no budget impact as a result of this action.
CEQA DETERMINATIONS
Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION
Discuss and provide direction to City Staff on any amendments to City Council Policy
1.05 concerning how abstentions are handled for voting purposes.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Policy 1.05 (Current)
2. City Council Policy 1.05 (2008)
REFERENCE MATERIALS – AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL None