Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions abstentions; solicitor says abstentions act as no votes
Summary
Resident raised concerns that two supervisors recorded abstentions on prior motions; Solicitor Falatovich advised that abstentions operate as no votes and are often used as protest rather than formal conflict disclosures. Board approved the Aug. 20 minutes unanimously.
The Salem Township Board of Supervisors approved the minutes of the Aug. 20, 2025, public meeting after a resident asked the board to confirm whether two abstentions recorded at prior meetings represented conflicts of interest or procedural protest.
Resident Eric Hageder told the board he had supplied a State Ethics Commission list highlighting when a "voting conflict" requires disclosure and asked whether the two abstentions — one by Supervisor Zundel on a paving project and one by Supervisor Trumbetta on tabling an Athena Drive lot consolidation — were valid conflict disclosures.
Solicitor Falatovich, participating remotely, told the board that "abstention is overused" and that, in those instances, an abstention functions as a no vote and is not necessarily a conflict of interest. "It would be appropriate to move forward in those instances to vote no and state the reason," he said, adding that the abstentions he reviewed appear to be protest votes rather than written conflict disclosures.
After the exchange, Supervisors Bob Zundel, Ken Trumbetta and Kerry Jobe voted to approve the minutes; the motion passed unanimously.
