Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Solicitor: abstentions count as 'no' votes; resident seeks clarity before minutes approval
Summary
At the Salem Township Board meeting resident Eric Hageder raised concerns about two prior supervisor abstentions; Solicitor Falatovich advised that an abstention functions as a "NO" vote and recommended stating a reason or voting no. The board approved the Aug. 20 minutes after the exchange.
The Salem Township Board of Supervisors approved its Aug. 20, 2025 meeting minutes after a resident raised questions about two earlier abstentions by supervisors.
Resident Eric Hageder asked the Board to confirm whether two supervisors had valid conflicts when they abstained during prior votes. Solicitor (Atty.) Falatovich responded directly: "the abstention is a NO vote. Abstention is overused," advising that supervisors should state a reason or register a no vote when they object to procedures rather than abstain. The motion to approve the minutes carried with Bob Zundel, Ken Trumbetta and Kerry Jobe voting in favor.
The exchange came during the call to order and initial agenda business, and Hageder's request prompted a brief discussion of whether those prior abstentions should have been recorded differently. The Board did not reverse any past votes; it recorded the Solicitor's guidance for future conduct. The item was procedural and no formal ethics complaint was lodged at the meeting.
