Why Abstention Has No Role to Play in Nonprofit Boardrooms

In the governance of nonprofit organisations, every board decision carries weight, not just for strategy and operations, but for mission, values, and public trust. In this context, abstention (the act of choosing not to vote) should be the rarest of exceptions. And yet too often it becomes a default behaviour for directors or trustees seeking to sidestep difficult decisions. This is not only unhelpful; it is a dereliction of governance duty and legal obligation.

Board members are not elected or appointed to be neutral observers. They are fiduciaries, charged with acting in the best interest of the organisation. This means engaging critically with proposals, contributing to deliberations, and ultimately making informed decisions. When a board member abstains without a clear and valid reason, such as a conflict of interest, it signals disengagement, indecision, or a lack of confidence, none of which belong in a functioning boardroom.

The temptation to abstain can be strong: perhaps the issue is contentious, complex, or politically sensitive; but that is precisely when strong governance is most needed. Directors and trustees are expected to exercise judgement under pressure, to synthesise diverse viewpoints, and to support decisions once they are made, even when they are not unanimous. Choosing not to vote because the matter is uncomfortable is to abdicate one’s responsibilities.

Moreover, frequent abstentions undermine board credibility and cohesion. Decision-making suffers when directors or trustees remove themselves from the process, and it sets a damaging precedent for passive participation. Over time, this erodes trust within the board and can frustrate executive teams who rely on clear governance direction.

To be clear: abstaining for valid, declared reasons, such as a personal conflict of interest, is both appropriate and expected; but abstaining out of uncertainty, reluctance, or political calculation sends the wrong message. Board members must lean in, not step back because in nonprofit governance, there is no neutral ground.