Kathleen Posted November 19, 2017 at 08:43 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 at 08:43 PM Our VP presided over a very important council meeting (as our President resigned ) therefore he is the new acting President. The vote ended in a tie of 5-5 including his vote. We thought he is only to vote IF THERE IS A TIE? So consequently, the vote would’ve been 4-5. What is correct please? Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:08 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:08 PM If you were using small board rules (recommended for boards of fewer than a dozen) the presiding officer could vote freely. Assuming otherwise, the presiding officer is supposed to vote only if they can influence the outcome. This includes breaking a tie, but it also includes creating a tie (and causing the motion to fail thereby). In this case, the presiding officer voted in favor of the motion, but did not influence the outcome, since it would have failed either way. So, assuming you're not using small board rules, he shouldn't have voted (although he has the right to do so). But, regardless, the presiding officer (assuming a member) has the right to vote anyway, and further regardless, it didn't change the outcome, so it's not clear to me why the organization is still talking about it. Incidentally, when the President resigns, the VP becomes the President, not the acting President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:11 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:11 PM See FAQ #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:36 PM Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:36 PM Thank you Joshua Katz for clarifying, I learned alot! We are still discussing this vote simply because we believe this issue will be brought to a vote once again next month because it ended in a tie. If the vote would have been 4-5 instead, would they still be able to make this same exact motion again next month? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathleen Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:48 PM Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 at 09:48 PM Thank you Mr. Gerber! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 19, 2017 at 10:01 PM Report Share Posted November 19, 2017 at 10:01 PM 23 minutes ago, Kathleen said: Thank you Joshua Katz for clarifying, I learned alot! We are still discussing this vote simply because we believe this issue will be brought to a vote once again next month because it ended in a tie. If the vote would have been 4-5 instead, would they still be able to make this same exact motion again next month? A motion which is not adopted may be made again at a subsequent session. It doesn't matter by what vote it fails. A motion fails on a tied vote, just as surely as on a lop-sided negative vote; in either case, it may not be made again at the same session, but may be made at later sessions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 20, 2017 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted November 20, 2017 at 05:41 PM 20 hours ago, Kathleen said: Our VP presided over a very important council meeting (as our President resigned ) therefore he is the new acting President. The vote ended in a tie of 5-5 including his vote. We thought he is only to vote IF THERE IS A TIE? So consequently, the vote would’ve been 4-5. What is correct please? Thank you! Unless your bylaws have some special rule, the presiding officer may vote to break a tie, create a tie, or in any other case where that single vote could affect the outcome one way or another. But in this case, it appears that the motion would have failed with or without the chair's vote, so although it could be argued that he should not have voted, nothing would have changed, except that the appearance of impartiality would have been preserved. One additional point: Unless your bylaws provide otherwise, the former VP is now president, not "acting" anything, and you have a vacancy in the office of VP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts