Chairman's right to vote

[Guest Dennis Burgess]

Organization bylaws state: "

"The Chair shall not vote except in the case of a tie vote, at which time the Chair shall vote to break a tie."

"The latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order (Revised), when not in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws, shall govern meetings of the Board of Trustees."

The Chair contends that he is entitled to vote in circumstances where his vote would affect the outcome, such as a situation requiring a two thirds majority when the vote is four to two in favor and the chair wishes to vote against the motion thus making it fail.

Others contend that the bylaws state categorically that the chair may only vote in the case of a tie, and that the section in the bylaws stands on its own, neither seeking nor accepting modification in the light of any special circumstances.

Who is correct?

[Sean Hunt]

Your bylaws appear to have a rule that differs from RONR, so that rule prevails. You should probably amend your bylaws and remove that sentence.

[Guest Edgar]

Others contend that the bylaws state categorically that the chair may only vote in the case of a tie . . .

Not only that, your bylaws state that the chair must (i.e. "shall") vote in the case of a tie.

[Rev Ed]

Well, the by-law is clear - there must be a tie vote in order to break the tie. I would probably suggest amending the by-law a bit to read that the chair can only vote when the vote would affect the results of the vote. Also, a tie vote defeats a motion, so the chair would not have to vote 'no' to defeat a motion when there is a tie vote as the motion is already defeated.

[Guest Edgar]

Also, a tie vote defeats a motion, so the chair would not have to vote 'no' to defeat a motion when there is a tie vote as the motion is already defeated.

But these bylaws say that the chair must vote when there's a tie. There is no exception made for when his vote won't make a difference.

[David A Foulkes]

But these bylaws say that the chair must vote when there's a tie. There is no exception made for when his vote won't make a difference.

Since a tie vote defeats the motion, if the chair votes in the negative (thus not even affecting the result), is he actually "breaking the tie"? It would seem that to "break the tie" the chair would be required to vote in the affirmative.

[Guest Edgar]

Since a tie vote defeats the motion, if the chair votes in the negative (thus not even affecting the result), is he actually "breaking the tie"? It would seem that to "break the tie" the chair would be required to vote in the affirmative.

Well, if that were true, not only is the chair required to vote in the case of a tie, he's required to vote in the affirmative.

But if the vote is, say, 5-5, the chair can vote "no" making the vote 5-6 which is clearly not a tie (and, in that sense, the tie has been broken), even though the outcome remains the same.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, if that were true, not only is the chair required to vote in the case of a tie, he's required to vote in the affirmative.

But if the vote is, say, 5-5, the chair can vote "no" making the vote 5-6 which is clearly not a tie (and, in that sense, the tie has been broken), even though the outcome remains the same.

Yes, and the idea seems silly. But there is little point in breaking the tie without the result being different than if it were not broken.

[Guest Edgar]

But there is little point in breaking the tie without the result being different than if it were not broken.

True. But rules must be obeyed.

[David A Foulkes]

But rules must be obeyed.

And if that were true, this forum would be much quieter. <insert winky emoticon here>

[Tim Wynn]

Would you two please get up out of the mud and just look down your nose at this bylaw provision, like I do?

[Guest Nancy N.]

LOL, LOL. Bravo, Tim Wynn!

[Guest Dennis Burgess]

Thank you all for your responses but they all miss the point.

Thechairman considers that the motion requires a two thirds majority to prevail. The voting without the chair's vote is four to two in favor, thus carrying the motion. But the chair believes he has the right to vote against the motion thus defeating it, The majority contend that he is not allowed to vote because the bylaws say he may only vote to break a tie. Is the chairman right or must he keep silent and allow the motion to succeed? Dennis Burgess

[Rev Ed]

He would not be allowed to vote under the rules as the rule states that the Chairman can only to vote to "break a tie" If the vote is 4-2 then there is no tie.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank you all for your responses but they all miss the point.

The chairman considers that the motion requires a two thirds majority to prevail. The voting without the chair's vote is four to two in favor, thus carrying the motion. But the chair believes he has the right to vote against the motion thus defeating it, The majority contend that he is not allowed to vote because the bylaws say he may only vote to break a tie. Is the chairman right or must he keep silent and allow the motion to succeed? Dennis Burgess

The chairman is wrong. The bylaws, stupid though they may be, prevent him from voting except in case of a tie, and force him to vote in the event of a tie..

The bylaws arguably should be amended to strike all references to when the chair may or may not vote, since the rules in RONR have the advantage of making actual sense. But until that happy day, the chair must abide by the existing bylaws.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you all for your responses but they all miss the point.

Thechairman considers that the motion requires a two thirds majority to prevail. The voting without the chair's vote is four to two in favor, thus carrying the motion. But the chair believes he has the right to vote against the motion thus defeating it, The majority contend that he is not allowed to vote because the bylaws say he may only vote to break a tie. Is the chairman right or must he keep silent and allow the motion to succeed? Dennis Burgess

On appeal, the majority would overturn the ruling of the chair. Read RONR (11th ed.), Sections 23 & 24.

Those of us on this forum will undoubtedly yield to the wisdom of the assembly, since it has presumably read your bylaws and we have not.

[David A Foulkes]

Would you two please get up out of the mud and just look down your nose at this bylaw provision, like I do?

Never saw it otherwise.

[Trina]

Thank you all for your responses but they all miss the point.

Thechairman considers that the motion requires a two thirds majority to prevail. The voting without the chair's vote is four to two in favor, thus carrying the motion. But the chair believes he has the right to vote against the motion thus defeating it, The majority contend that he is not allowed to vote because the bylaws say he may only vote to break a tie. Is the chairman right or must he keep silent and allow the motion to succeed? Dennis Burgess

How did post #2 -- the first response to your question, by scshunt -- miss the point? The point is nicely recapitulated by Mr. Novosielski in post #15 --

"The bylaws, stupid though they may be, prevent him from voting except in case of a tie..."

Rules in the bylaws supersede the rules in RONR.

[Tim Wynn]

Rules in the bylaws supersede the rules in RONR.

... and common sense.