President voting in order to Reconsider

[Sean Hunt]

Is it in order for the President to vote on a motion in order to allow himself to the move to Reconsider? Let's assume that for whatever reason, he feel that his opinion was important enough until during the voting, so he wasn't violating any aspects of impartiality, as he would leave the chair after stating the motion to Reconsider, and not resume it until the reconsidered motion was dealt with again.

The argument for this is that the President normally does not vote unless it makes a difference, but whether or not the President can move to Reconsider is indeed a difference, if he intends to do so and also that the President does have a right to vote, but he generally does not exercise it as a convention to maintain his impartiality.*

The argument against is that doing so is a display of partiality and against the rule about when the President votes, and the President's right does not trump that as he is presiding at the time of the vote, and the only 'difference' to which that rule should apply is an actual change in outcome of the vote.

[David A Foulkes]

Is it in order for the President to vote on a motion in order to allow himself to the move to Reconsider?

Considering the number of citations from RONR that could be provided to support an answer of no here, are there any that might support an answer of yes?

[Josh Martin]

Is it in order for the President to vote on a motion in order to allow himself to the move to Reconsider?

Ultimately yes, but he shouldn't do so. The president should only vote if his vote would affect the result, but a member ultimately has the right to vote on any motion. (FAQ #1)

The argument for this is that the President normally does not vote unless it makes a difference, but whether or not the President can move to Reconsider is indeed a difference, if he intends to do so

Well, I think this is an overly broad paraphrase of what RONR actually says - "In all other cases the presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, can (but is not obliged to) vote whenever his vote will affect the result - that is, he can vote either to break or to cause a tie; or in a case where a two-thirds vote is required, he can vote either to cause or to block the attainment of the necessary two thirds." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 405, lines 21-26) I don't think this rule encompasses the President voting for a motion in order that he may move to Reconsider.

The argument against is that doing so is a display of partiality and against the rule about when the President votes, and the President's right does not trump that as he is presiding at the time of the vote, and the only 'difference' to which that rule should apply is an actual change in outcome of the vote.

This is a much more accurate reading of what RONR says about the President voting, but nonetheless, the right to vote is a basic right of membership and may not be infringed upon by anything short of disciplinary procedures (or a rule in the Bylaws or a higher-level document). (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 264, lines 6-13)

Considering the number of citations from RONR that could be provided to support an answer of no here, are there any that might support an answer of yes?

See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 264, lines 6-13.

[David A Foulkes]

See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 264, lines 6-13.

Well, yes of course but, I was seeking a citation that would promote the idea that the President (presiding officer, more accurately) could break his impartiality without relinquishing the chair so as to vote for the sole purpose of being allowed to later make a motion to Reconsider.

[Trina]

I think the President voting, with the purpose of being able to later make a motion to reconsider, has a flavor or parliamentary cleverness that doesn't go well with the desired impartiality of the office.

I believe it would be more honest, and better received by the assembly, if the President (on very rare occasions) simply enters into debate on an issue he/she feels that strongly about. The option of jumping in on the vote, and then moving to reconsider, seems more manipulative. I'm probably not expressing this well, but it's almost as though the President is taking personal advantage of the better knowledge of parliamentary procedure which he/she should have in order to do a good job as presiding officer. If the President does have better knowledge of procedure, that knowledge should be used to the benefit of the assembly, not cleverly manipulated to advance a personal agenda.

[David A Foulkes]

I think the rules in RONR are quite clear on the chair debating and voting. If he wants to "participate in debate, he must relinquish his the chair." (p. 395 ll. 1-2, emphasis added) Except if by ballot, he can exercise "his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome" (p. 53 ll. 20-21, emphasis added).

There is a rule against non-members speaking in debate, but RONR provides a mechanism by which this rule can be gotten around (i.e. Suspend the Rules). A member parliamentarian does not exercise his rights (except for ballot voting), unless he resigns that post. Likewise, there are rules precluding the presiding officer from exercising his rights as a member (with noted exceptions) while in the chair, but RONR provides a mechanism by which these rules can be gotten around (i.e. relinquishing the chair).

[Josh Martin]

Well, yes of course but, I was seeking a citation that would promote the idea that the President (presiding officer, more accurately) could break his impartiality without relinquishing the chair so as to vote for the sole purpose of being allowed to later make a motion to Reconsider.

I'm not sure what about "These basic rights may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings" is unclear (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 264, lines 12-13).

I think the rules in RONR are quite clear on the chair debating and voting. If he wants to "participate in debate, he must relinquish his the chair." (p. 395 ll. 1-2, emphasis added) Except if by ballot, he can exercise "his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome" (p. 53 ll. 20-21, emphasis added).

Yes, and if the chair voted for some other reason, such as to permit himself to move to Reconsider, or because he wished his position recorded on a roll call vote, or simply because he felt like it, the chair would be in violation of the rule you have cited. This may be grounds for finding a new chair, particularly if the chair does this habitually, but the chair may not be prevented from voting.

A member parliamentarian does not exercise his rights (except for ballot voting), unless he resigns that post.

Nonetheless, if a member parliamentarian chooses to vote when the vote is not taken by ballot, he may not be prevented from doing so. He may find himself out of a position very quickly, but his right to vote may not be denied.

Likewise, there are rules precluding the presiding officer from exercising his rights as a member (with noted exceptions) while in the chair, but RONR provides a mechanism by which these rules can be gotten around (i.e. relinquishing the chair).

Unfortunately, it is not possible to relinquish the chair during the taking of a vote (since the taking of a vote may not be interrupted), so this is not particularly helpful in this instance.

When a member takes on a position in which the duties of the position conflict with his rights of membership, the member does not give up any rights, since this may only occur by virtue of disciplinary procedures or a provision in the Bylaws. Rather, the member agrees not to exercise these rights. Since the member still retains his rights, he may begin exercising them again at any time. The assembly could remove him from his position for doing so, but it may not prevent him from exercising his rights of membership.