When all members abstain

[sfraser]

Hello again:

The chair of the meeting has the ability to cast a vote to either make or break a tie. However, does a 'tie' exist when all members of a board have abstained from an issue and refrained to make any vote?

Scenario: a motion is made and seconded to take a specific action. The membership of the board end up taking no position. Can the president / chair then vote in either direction to cause the motion to pass or fail?

[David A Foulkes]

Per RONR, at "small" board meetings (of about a dozen or fewer members in attendance) the chair can vote right along with everyone else. So, in this case, he could cast the only vote (abstentions aren't votes anyway) and the motion would pass with a vote of 1 - 0. He would not have to vote (no, that is) to cause it to fail. He could simply abstain along with everyone else.

You mention the "chair of the meeting has the ability to cast a vote to either make or break a tie." Is that something that comes out of your bylaws? Or is it just your understanding of the generic RONR rule regarding the chair voting?

BTW - there is no "tie" if no votes are cast. And don't go down that slippery slope of thinking that 0-0 is a tie here.

[jstackpo]

I would think so -- 0 to 0 is a much of a tie as tied votes would be (and if left at that the motion would be defeated since there is clearly NOT a majority of voters in favor)

Is the restriction on your president's voting in your bylaws? It is NOT found in RONR.

[Weldon Merritt]

BTW - there is no "tie" if no votes are cast. And don't go down that slippery slope of thinking that 0-0 is a tie here.

Why do you say that? I agree that it is not a "tied vote," since no votes were cast, but it is still a "tie." A fotball game at 0-0 is a still tie, even though there has been no score by either team. (I am not sure it makes much difference what you call it; either way, the motion fails.)

[Rob Elsman]

Hello again:

The chair of the meeting has the ability to cast a vote to either make or break a tie. However, does a 'tie' exist when all members of a board have abstained from an issue and refrained to make any vote?

Scenario: a motion is made and seconded to take a specific action. The membership of the board end up taking no position. Can the president / chair then vote in either direction to cause the motion to pass or fail?

If taken as a voice vote or show of hands, if I were I the president, I would have considered the vote unrepresentative and retaken it as a standing vote, RONR (10th ed.), pp. 48, 49.

[jstackpo]

And if I were a member of the board, I would just stay seated.

[David A Foulkes]

Why do you say that? I agree that it is not a "tied vote," since no votes were cast, but it is still a "tie." A fotball game at 0-0 is a still tie, even though there has been no score by either team. (I am not sure it makes much difference what you call it; either way, the motion fails.)

My regrets. I'd hoped it would be clear that what I meant was that 0-0 is not a tie "vote." As for the application of that numerical comparison to things non-parliamentary, I would see no place for it here, and would hope the OP would not either. Next time I'll try to be more precise.

[Weldon Merritt]

My regrets. I'd hoped it would be clear that what I meant was that 0-0 is not a tie "vote." As for the application of that numerical comparison to things non-parliamentary, I would see no place for it here, and would hope the OP would not either. Next time I'll try to be more precise.

Fair enough.

[Sean Hunt]

Scenario: a motion is made and seconded to take a specific action. The membership of the board end up taking no position. Can the president / chair then vote in either direction to cause the motion to pass or fail?

I'll add the note that if the board actually wants to take no opinion on the matter rather than individually express no opinion, they would be advised to use the motion to Postpone Indefinitely (or perhaps to Object to the Consideration of a Question, but that seems less likely in this case.)

[Gary Novosielski]

The chair of the meeting has the ability to cast a vote to either make or break a tie. However, does a 'tie' exist when all members of a board have abstained from an issue and refrained to make any vote?

Scenario: a motion is made and seconded to take a specific action. The membership of the board end up taking no position. Can the president / chair then vote in either direction to cause the motion to pass or fail?

Actually, unless that rule is included in your bylaws, the chair, even in larger meetings where impartiality is expected, may vote any time his vote would make a difference, not only when within one vote of a tie. He may vote to make or deny a 2/3 vote, for example, when that is the threshold required. In small boards of about a dozen or fewer, the chair normally votes along with all members, absent a local rule or custom to the contrary.

In this case, if there have been no votes, the motion fails. So the chair, if he opposed the motion would not vote, allowing the motion to fail. If he favored the motion, he could cast an affirmative vote, allowing the motion to carry (unanimously, for those who care about such things).

[sfraser]

You mention the "chair of the meeting has the ability to cast a vote to either make or break a tie." Is that something that comes out of your bylaws? Or is it just your understanding of the generic RONR rule regarding the chair voting?

That's specifically in the bylaws. I understand that by RONR, in small meetings a chair votes alongside everyone else, however our bylaws specifically remove that by stating that the Chair shall vote only in cases specified by Roberts Rules - bad wording, but the intent of the legislative body at the time was to not allow 'small meeting' voting, so we've stuck by the intent.

[Gary Novosielski]

That's specifically in the bylaws. I understand that by RONR, in small meetings a chair votes alongside everyone else, however our bylaws specifically remove that by stating that the Chair shall vote only in cases specified by Roberts Rules - bad wording, but the intent of the legislative body at the time was to not allow 'small meeting' voting, so we've stuck by the intent.

Well, if the bylaws truly say that the Chair can vote in cases specified by Robert's Rules, then the chair can vote ANY time his vote would make a difference, as well as at any time within a "small" board or committee. What makes you think your bylaws specifically remove that, when that's what is specified by Robert's Rules?

So, I'd say it was very good wording indeed. The intent at the time makes no difference if the written rule is clear.

In fact, if the bylaws said absolutely nothing about the chair voting, the same effect would be achieved--that is, the chair would be permitted to vote according to the rules contained in RONR--which is what your bylaws say.

[sfraser]

Well, if the bylaws truly say that the Chair can vote in cases specified by Robert's Rules, then the chair can vote ANY time his vote would make a difference, as well as at any time within a "small" board or committee. What makes you think your bylaws specifically remove that, when that's what is specified by Robert's Rules?

So, I'd say it was very good wording indeed. The intent at the time makes no difference if the written rule is clear.

In fact, if the bylaws said absolutely nothing about the chair voting, the same effect would be achieved--that is, the chair would be permitted to vote according to the rules contained in RONR--which is what your bylaws say.

Let me try and reword what I said.

Indeed - any time the chair's vote makes a difference was the intent. However, the intent very specifically was for the chair in this particular position to be the neutral chair that he or she would in a larger body. Although, it scarcely matters since we have over a dozen members on the Exec Board (including the pres).

Thanks all for the information. So, essentially it boils down to the President continues to cast the deciding vote if no-one else does vote.

Out of curiosity, if the president also were to abstain, the motion would automatically fail? I'd assume so, since you can't really have a motion sitting in limbo?

[David A Foulkes]

So, essentially it boils down to the President continues to cast the deciding vote if no-one else does vote.

The exact wording of your bylaw is important here. There a good bit of difference interpretation-wise between The chair of the meeting has the ability to cast a vote to either make or break a tie and the Chair shall vote only in cases specified by Roberts Rules. In the first case, I'd say your chair can not vote if all others abstain, and he can vote in the second case. I'm not sure we've been provided a bylaw quote yet, so there is some ambiguity still at play.

Out of curiosity, if the president also were to abstain, the motion would automatically fail? I'd assume so, since you can't really have a motion sitting in limbo?

If no one at all votes "aye", the motion fails.

[Gary Novosielski]

Out of curiosity, if the president also were to abstain, the motion would automatically fail? I'd assume so, since you can't really have a motion sitting in limbo?

Nothing sits in limbo. A motion which reaches the voting stage will either be passed or not. If it requires a majority vote for adoption, then it will pass if it achieves that threshold; if not, it is rejected. There are no special cases.

The easiest test for a majority vote is to see if it got more Yes votes than No votes. If so, then it passes. So a tie vote, or no votes at all, or any other situation you can imagine where the Yes votes failed to outnumber the No votes, you simply have a motion that failed to achieve a majority. Therefore, a motion that received zero No votes would require at least one Yes vote to pass.