Quorum - President votes only on tie vote, do they count as quorum member

[Guest John Maxwell]

If the President only votes on tie vote, do they count as one of the officers to make the official quorum for the meeting?  If quorum is 7, and there are 6 members present, will the president make number 7?   If then this is a legal quorum, and all 6 of the officers vote in favor of an item, is this a legal vote and the item is considered as passed?

[Dan Honemann]

If the President only votes on tie vote, do they count as one of the officers to make the official quorum for the meeting?  If quorum is 7, and there are 6 members present, will the president make number 7?   If then this is a legal quorum, and all 6 of the officers vote in favor of an item, is this a legal vote and the item is considered as passed?

 

See FAQ #1.

 

Do your bylaws provide that the president only votes to break a tie?

[Transpower]

Of course the president counts as a member of the quorum.

[Gary Novosielski]

Of course the president counts as a member of the quorum.

 

...unless he's not a member of the assembly (unusual but not impossible).

[Dan Honemann]

...unless he's not a member of the assembly (unusual but not impossible).

 

... and if the bylaws prohibit him from voting except to break a tie, is he a member of the assembly as defined in RONR?

[Rev Ed]

If the President is a member of the Board then he/she not only counts towards quorum and may vote.  As the Board appears to be comprised of less than 13 members, the President is free to enter into debate, make motions, vote, etc. under the relaxed rules of RONR.  The only way to enforce the President voting to break a tie would be to create a special rule about this.

[David A Foulkes]

... and if the bylaws prohibit him from voting except to break a tie, is he a member of the assembly as defined in RONR?

 

We don't know why the president only votes in cases of tie votes. It may be custom, or a misunderstanding of parliamentary rules and the imagined restrictions they place on the chair, or it may be a restriction in the society's rules.  Nonetheless, your question has been vexing me, so thought I'd offer some thoughts.

 

All members (otherwise unencumbered by rules, that is) always retain the right to vote, yet that right is still restricted by procedure.  No member can vote whenever he wants to, but only when a vote is called for by the chair putting the question on a pending motion. As the meeting is called to order, voting is not possible. During the moving of a motion, or while debate is continuing, voting is not possible.  The actual casting of votes is appropriate only at such times as the question has been put and the chair is calling for ayes and nos (raised hands, standing, etc), ballots have been distributed, and so on.  That is, while the right to vote exists, it may only be exercised at certain times.

 

The chair operates under additional restrictions as placed on him by RONR, in that he does not make motions, enter into debate, or vote except under specific circumstances (notwithstanding relinquishing the chair).  It's true that he retains all these rights, but is obliged by the rules in RONR to avoid exercising them to maintain the appearance of impartiality required of the chair.  In the case at hand, much as all other members have the right to vote but may only exercise it at specific moments during the proceedings, the president is under a similar restriction that he may only vote at specific moments (when voting has attained a tie).  His right to vote has not been (as far as we know yet) taken from him completely, but can be exercised only under more restrictive circumstances as compared to other members.  I'm cautiously shimmying out on that proverbial limb to say he is still a member of the assembly as defined in RONR.

 

Now I'll sit back and prepare to take my lumps.

[Dan Honemann]

We don't know why the president only votes in cases of tie votes. It may be custom, or a misunderstanding of parliamentary rules and the imagined restrictions they place on the chair, or it may be a restriction in the society's rules.  Nonetheless, your question has been vexing me, so thought I'd offer some thoughts.

 

All members (otherwise unencumbered by rules, that is) always retain the right to vote, yet that right is still restricted by procedure.  No member can vote whenever he wants to, but only when a vote is called for by the chair putting the question on a pending motion. As the meeting is called to order, voting is not possible. During the moving of a motion, or while debate is continuing, voting is not possible.  The actual casting of votes is appropriate only at such times as the question has been put and the chair is calling for ayes and nos (raised hands, standing, etc), ballots have been distributed, and so on.  That is, while the right to vote exists, it may only be exercised at certain times.

 

The chair operates under additional restrictions as placed on him by RONR, in that he does not make motions, enter into debate, or vote except under specific circumstances (notwithstanding relinquishing the chair).  It's true that he retains all these rights, but is obliged by the rules in RONR to avoid exercising them to maintain the appearance of impartiality required of the chair.  In the case at hand, much as all other members have the right to vote but may only exercise it at specific moments during the proceedings, the president is under a similar restriction that he may only vote at specific moments (when voting has attained a tie).  His right to vote has not been (as far as we know yet) taken from him completely, but can be exercised only under more restrictive circumstances as compared to other members.  I'm cautiously shimmying out on that proverbial limb to say he is still a member of the assembly as defined in RONR.

 

Now I'll sit back and prepare to take my lumps.

 

But you haven't even tried to answer my question yet.

[David A Foulkes]

Hmm.... I kind-a thought the last twelve words did.

[Dan Honemann]

Okay, I misunderstood. It seemed to me that nothing you previously mentioned related to a situation in which the bylaws prohibit the president from voting except to break a tie.

[Josh Martin]

... and if the bylaws prohibit him from voting except to break a tie, is he a member of the assembly as defined in RONR?

 

No, I don't think so. A member of an assembly is "a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 3) Under the rules in RONR, the President (if a member of the assembly) is still entitled to full participation, but refrains from participating due to the duties of his office. If the bylaws actually prohibit the President from voting except to break a tie, however, he is not entitled to full participation in the assembly's proceedings, and is therefore not a member of the assembly as defined in RONR.

 

The only way to enforce the President voting to break a tie would be to create a special rule about this.

 

A special rule of order would not be sufficient. If a society wishes to provide that the President is actually prohibited from voting except to break a tie, such a rule would need to be in the bylaws.

[Bruce Lages]

I hope by this point, if guest John Maxwell is still following this discussion, it's become clear that a rule specifying that the president can only vote in the event of a tie is, in addition to being contrary to the rule in RONR, also a really bad idea. As Dan and Josh have indicated, while such a rule may well render the president a non-member of the assembly (at the least for quorum purposes), that's not going to become known until a vote is taken. If you're dealing with a situation where the meeting attendance is close to the quorum number, do you really want to have to wait until a vote is taken before you can determine whether or not the business you're transacting is going to be valid?

[Josh Martin]

I hope by this point, if guest John Maxwell is still following this discussion, it's become clear that a rule specifying that the president can only vote in the event of a tie is, in addition to being contrary to the rule in RONR, also a really bad idea. As Dan and Josh have indicated, while such a rule may well render the president a non-member of the assembly (at the least for quorum purposes), that's not going to become known until a vote is taken. If you're dealing with a situation where the meeting attendance is close to the quorum number, do you really want to have to wait until a vote is taken before you can determine whether or not the business you're transacting is going to be valid?

 

What I'm suggesting in Post #11 is that if the bylaws provide that the President is prohibited from voting except to break a tie, he is not a member of the assembly as the term is defined in RONR at any time, since he is not entitled to full participation. He would therefore not be counted as a member for the purposes of determining what the assembly's quorum is or whether a quorum is present at any time.

 

As you note, providing that the President counts toward the quorum at some times but not at others would lead to all sorts of problems. That is not what I am suggesting.

[Gary Novosielski]

... and if the bylaws prohibit him from voting except to break a tie, is he a member of the assembly as defined in RONR?

 

Well, he may or may not be a member of the assembly, which i think would require a careful reading of the bylaws, but i would say with some certainty that he's not a member "as defined in RONR", since that definition implies a right to vote, and the freedom to vote whenever that one vote could be a deciding one.

[Guest John Maxwell]

I have been following along and thought it was clear, but as the discussion continues, appears that the water does get cloudy.   The President, or Chair, is one of the members of the slate of Officers and Board of Directors, but it does indicate that the President/Chair can only vote when their is a tie vote of the Board.   There are 13 members of the Officers and Board of Directors, and my original question was, "Does the President/Chair, count as member number 7, which then is the Official Quorum for a meeting.

Next question was, if we have the quorum, counting the President/Chair, and there is a vote taken on a matter, with the 6 board members in attendance, and the majority votes in favor, does the motion or matter pass.

If the President/Chair, does count, and rules there is a quorum present, then in my opinion the votes cast by the 6 other Officers/Board are legitimate votes.  If there was a tie vote, 3 to 3, then the President could vote and break a tie.   Is this correct?

Some of the Board, advised that a majority of the voting members were not in attendance and vote would not be legitimate, even though the President called it a meeting with a quorum present.

This matter is not addressed in the Club bylaws other than the President/Chair cannot vote unless of a tie vote, and by laws do indicae that Roberts Rulles of Order is the governing procedures to follow, but does not reference the newly revised Roberts Rules of Order.
Thanks.  John Maxwell

 

[Josh Martin]

The President, or Chair, is one of the members of the slate of Officers and Board of Directors, but it does indicate that the President/Chair can only vote when their is a tie vote of the Board. 

 

Thank you for clarifying this. We like to double check when someone claims that the President cannot vote except in case of a tie, because this is often based on misconceptions of RONR rather than a rule in the organization's bylaws.

 

The President, or Chair, is one of the members of the slate of Officers and Board of Directors, but it does indicate that the President/Chair can only vote when their is a tie vote of the Board.  There are 13 members of the Officers and Board of Directors, and my original question was, "Does the President/Chair, count as member number 7, which then is the Official Quorum for a meeting.

 

Based upon the additional facts provided, no, I don't believe the President would count toward the quorum, at least so far as RONR is concerned (although stay tuned for other opinions now that the facts have been clarified). This will ultimately, however, be a question of bylaws interpretation. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

My interpretation is largely based on my conclusion that a member who can only vote in very limited circumstances is not a member so far as RONR is concerned. If the society feels that the President is a full member of the board under the organization's rules, notwithstanding that his right to vote is severely restricted, that would suggest that he does count toward the quorum.

 

Next question was, if we have the quorum, counting the President/Chair, and there is a vote taken on a matter, with the 6 board members in attendance, and the majority votes in favor, does the motion or matter pass.

 

Generally speaking, a majority vote is sufficient to adopt a motion, yes.

 

If the President/Chair, does count, and rules there is a quorum present, then in my opinion the votes cast by the 6 other Officers/Board are legitimate votes.  If there was a tie vote, 3 to 3, then the President could vote and break a tie.   Is this correct?

 

Yes.

 

Some of the Board, advised that a majority of the voting members were not in attendance and vote would not be legitimate, even though the President called it a meeting with a quorum present.

 

Based on the facts presented, I'm inclined to agree with those board members, but it's ultimately not up to me. A board member should have raised a Point of Order about this at the time, followed by an Appeal if necessary, so that the board could have decided the issue. A board member can still do that now, but it takes clear and convincing proof to declare an action invalid based on a lack of quorum after the fact.

 

This matter is not addressed in the Club bylaws other than the President/Chair cannot vote unless of a tie vote, and by laws do indicae that Roberts Rulles of Order is the governing procedures to follow, but does not reference the newly revised Roberts Rules of Order.

 

The current edition of RONR is your parliamentary authority unless your bylaws reference a specific edition, such as the 4th or 6th. Still, in order that there is no confusion on this subject, the provision in your bylaws on the parliamentary authority should read like this.

 

In any event, however, I don't believe it makes any difference for this particular question, as I'm fairly certain the rules on this subject have been the same for the past few centuries or so.