Voting Order

[Guest brokenBOD]

When our board asks for the question it is always in the same order. Alphabetical by the first letter of the last name. Is this a must by Robert's Rules?

[Rev Ed]

No, but if the Chairman is following a list of members then it makes sense. And what is exactly the issue?

[hmtcastle]

When our board asks for the question it is always in the same order. Alphabetical by the first letter of the last name. Is this a must by Robert's Rules?

For roll-call votes only: "The roll is called in alphabetical order except that the presiding officer's name is called last, and only when his vote will affect the result." (p. 406). Procedures are relaxed in "small" boards.

[Guest BrokenBOD]

No, but if the Chairman is following a list of members then it makes sense. And what is exactly the issue?

The list is written in the form of the outline by a secretary (not the Secretary of the Board). We are told that it is Robert’s Rules of Order and the order of the question cannot be changed

The problem is that sometimes certain members tend to vote by following the leader. The board president is the first member always to vote.

Some members like to take the easy way out then to stand on their own. If the position of the vote were to be in different order from vote to vote they may be more likely to vote their true position on the matter. Yes, it is very frustrating to know board members rather rubber stamp everything rather than stand on principle or right and wrong.

[David A Foulkes]

The list is written in the form of the outline by a secretary (not the Secretary of the Board). We are told that it is Robert’s Rules of Order and the order of the question cannot be changed

The problem is that sometimes certain members tend to vote by following the leader. The board president is the first member always to vote.

Some members like to take the easy way out then to stand on their own. If the position of the vote were to be in different order from vote to vote they may be more likely to vote their true position on the matter. Yes, it is very frustrating to know board members rather rubber stamp everything rather than stand on principle or right and wrong.

Just because someone tells you "It's in Roberts Rules" doesn't mean it is. Ask them to show it to you in the book. Strike 1. (Although actually in this case, they're right - RONR 10th Ed., page 406, line 16)

As noted, the presiding officer (board president?) should vote last, and only if his vote will affect the result. Strike 2. (RONR 10th Ed., p. 406, l. 16-18)

If members aren't going to vote how they actually feel, but rather to be in "the club" and go along like sheep with the president or whomever, then we can't help you. Such people often get what they deserve, and it usually isn't pleasant. Strike 3 (Book of Life, 1st Ed., p. 1 l. 1-3)

[Josh Martin]

The board president is the first member always to vote.

Is this simply because the board president has a name early in the alphabet, or does he claim that he votes first by virtue of being board president?

Some members like to take the easy way out then to stand on their own. If the position of the vote were to be in different order from vote to vote they may be more likely to vote their true position on the matter. Yes, it is very frustrating to know board members rather rubber stamp everything rather than stand on principle or right and wrong.

Well, personally, I think the solution is the society needs to elect board members with spines. If the society wishes, however, it could adopt a special rule of order to take the vote in whatever order it feels is preferable. A system could even be devised in which the order varied from vote to vote. The general membership may adopt a special rule of order by a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The board may not adopt special rules of order unless the Bylaws authorize it to do so. If it is so authorized, the same voting requirements would apply.

As noted, the presiding officer (board president?) should vote last, and only if his vote will affect the result. Strike 2. (RONR 10th Ed., p. 406, l. 16-18)

It seems likely that this is a small board (about a dozen members or fewer), in which case the presiding officer would vote wherever he falls in alphabetical order.

[David A Foulkes]

It seems likely that this is a small board (about a dozen members or fewer), in which case the presiding officer would vote wherever he falls in alphabetical order.

Any RONR citational support for this, or is it just your sense of how it would work (roll call, small board, etc)?

[Josh Martin]

Any RONR citational support for this, or is it just your sense of how it would work (roll call, small board, etc)?

No explicit citation, but I think it is the logical conclusion. The reason for the chair to vote last in a roll call vote is so that the chair may wait to determine whether his vote will affect the result. In a small board, the chair is free to vote in all cases (subject to the rules and customs of the particular board), so there is no reason for him to vote last.

[David A Foulkes]

....so there is no reason for him to vote last.

Except that by voting mid-alphabet as it were, he relinquishes his ability to affect the result of the vote, something that might be worth holding onto.

[tctheatc]

if these board members are as spineless as described, one could likely make the order more random, but then there'd just be a scramble to change votes after they see how their binky voted. And who wants to see that?

[hmtcastle]

Some members like to take the easy way out then to stand on their own. If the position of the vote were to be in different order from vote to vote they may be more likely to vote their true position on the matter.

" . . . a vote by ballot can be ordered by majority vote -- which may be desirable in any case where it is believed that members may thereby be more likely to vote their true sentiments." (p. 398) Unless your rules require a roll-call vote (which is essentially the opposite of a ballot vote), this may be the way to go.

[Josh Martin]

Except that by voting mid-alphabet as it were, he relinquishes his ability to affect the result of the vote, something that might be worth holding onto.

Yes, it might be worth holding onto, but there's no reason to let the chair hold onto it. There is no reason to let the chair of a small board have special treatment in the voting order.

And who wants to see that?

Good point. Mr. Mountcastle's suggestion of a ballot vote seems wise if this is something that happens once in a while. If it's every time, new board members may be the best solution.

[Dan Honemann]

It seems likely that this is a small board (about a dozen members or fewer), in which case the presiding officer would vote wherever he falls in alphabetical order.

I don't see any justification for this. It seems to me that even when a roll-call vote is taken in a small board or in a committee, the roll should be called in the order prescribed on page 406, lines 16-18. The only difference might be that the presiding officer may vote last regardless of whether or not his vote will affect the result (but why bother?).

[Rob Elsman]

I don't see any justification for this. It seems to me that even when a roll-call vote is taken in a small board or in a committee, the roll should be called in the order prescribed on page 406, lines 16-18. The only difference might be that the presiding officer may vote last regardless of whether or not his vote will affect the result (but why bother?).

I agree with Mr. Martin. When the chairman of a small board or committee regularly votes whether or not his vote affects the result, what is said on p. 406 does not apply, in my opinion. The chairman should be called in his alphabetical place in the roll.

[Josh Martin]

I don't see any justification for this. It seems to me that even when a roll-call vote is taken in a small board or in a committee, the roll should be called in the order prescribed on page 406, lines 16-18. The only difference might be that the presiding officer may vote last regardless of whether or not his vote will affect the result (but why bother?).

It has been my understanding that the reason the presiding officer votes last is so that he may determine whether his vote will affect the result. Since such a consideration does not apply in small boards or committees, it seemed perfectly logical to me that in the absence of any reason for the contrary, the chairman should vote along with the other members, just as he does in any other type of vote in a small board or committee. While I suppose there is no particular harm in having the chair vote last in a roll call vote even in small boards and committees, there seems to be no compelling reason to do so.

[Gary Novosielski]

It has been my understanding that the reason the presiding officer votes last is so that he may determine whether his vote will affect the result. Since such a consideration does not apply in small boards or committees, it seemed perfectly logical....

You're doubtless right about the reason behind the practice. But I think it would be more accurate to say that it need not apply in small bodies. If the decision of whether or not to vote continues to be up to the chair to decide, even in smaller venues, which may be a matter of established custom, then by reading the chair's name last, it affords the chair with that level of control, as well as the option to exercise it with the full knowledge of how others have voted.

The factors that influence the chair's decision are different in small boards and committees, but I think the decision should still rest with the chair.

[Josh Martin]

...it affords the chair with that level of control, as well as the option to exercise it with the full knowledge of how others have voted.

I still don't understand why this is supposed to be a good thing.

[Rob Elsman]

I still don't understand why this is supposed to be a good thing.

Mr. Martin, I think Mr. Novosielski is winging it. As far as I can tell, the chairman of a small board or committee is just one of the gang--nothing more, nothing less.

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Martin, I think Mr. Novosielski is winging it. As far as I can tell, the chairman of a small board or committee is just one of the gang--nothing more, nothing less.

As far as the duties of the presiding officer are concerned, the only difference in the rules governing meetings of small boards and committees is that he is no longer obligated to maintain a position of impartiality. He may, however, do so if he deems it advisable, and none of the rules in RONR should be interpreted in such a way as to preclude or inhibit him from doing so.

[Rob Elsman]

As far as the duties of the presiding officer are concerned, the only difference in the rules governing meetings of small boards and committees is that he is no longer obligated to maintain a position of impartiality. He may, however, do so if he deems it advisable, and none of the rules in RONR should be interpreted in such a way as to preclude or inhibit him from doing so.

In my opinion, in a small board or committee in which it is the rule or custom that the chairman regularly votes, whether or not his vote affects the result, the chairman has the same duty as any other member to vote if he is able to form an opinion on the pending question, although, like any other member, he cannot be compelled to do so, RONR (10th ed.), p. 394.