finance comm. chair and vote confusion

[Guest CVR]

We have a Financial Oversight Committee, nominated and elected by the general membership. The top three vote-getters are the committee, with the top vote-getter being chair and casting the treasurer's vote. After the fact, we realized that the chair is already a voting member of the board in a different capacity. I believe I should appoint the second highest vote-getter to cast the treasurer's vote. Does she also become chair or does that remain with the original chair? We never anticipated this situation, so we will amend our bylaws to reflect this provision. Any suggestions how to handle this would be appreciated.

Thank you.

[Guest Edgar]

After the fact, we realized that the chair is already a voting member of the board in a different capacity. I believe I should appoint the second highest vote-getter to cast the treasurer's vote.

Why do you think you have the authority to appoint anyone and why do you believe an appointment is necessary?

In other words, what's wrong with the fact that "the chair is already a voting member of the board in a different capacity"?

You might also explain what you mean by someone (presumably not the treasurer) "casting the treasurer's vote".

[CVR]

I'm really not sure that an appointment is necessary, but if it is, my authority is that I am president of the organization. My first instinct was to leave it alone, so my question at that point was whether the FOC chair, who is also a one-year director, would vote in each capacity and/or count twice toward quorum. I was corrected by two other members, both of whom thought the vote should go to the next high vote-getter. However, one of them thought the next high should receive only the vote, while the other believed the next high should receive both the vote and become chair.

Our bylaws state that the chair of the FOC will cast the treasurer's vote as the treasurer is a permanent and non-voting position.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . my question at that point was whether the FOC chair, who is also a one-year director, would vote in each capacity and/or count twice toward quorum.

. . . one of them thought the next high should receive only the vote, while the other believed the next high should receive both the vote and become chair.

Our bylaws state that the chair of the FOC will cast the treasurer's vote as the treasurer is a permanent and non-voting position.

Congratulations on becoming a member of this august (or maybe only July) forum. You'll thank yourself each time you don't have to decipher the hideous CAPTCHA code.

I can make a few general observations (which may be superseded by your organization's own peculiar rules.

1. Each member has only one vote, regardless of how many hats he may wear (i.e. how many offices he may hold).

2. The person who finishes in second place (i.e. "the next high vote-getter") is never declared the winner. You vote again. First place wins. Second place loses.

3. I'm still confused about someone other than the treasurer casting the treasurer's vote.

[David A Foulkes]

I'm really not sure that an appointment is necessary, but if it is, my authority is that I am president of the organization.

You only have that authority if your bylaws say you do. Do they?

o my question at that point was whether the FOC chair... would vote in each capacity

Nope.

... and/or count twice toward quorum.

Nope.

I was corrected by two other members, both of whom thought the vote should go to the next high vote-getter.

Nope.

However, one of them thought the next high should receive only the vote, while the other believed the next high should receive both the vote and become chair.

But you said:

The top three vote-getters are the committee, with the top vote-getter being chair and casting the treasurer's vote.

So the top vote getter is the chair and gets the vote. But, wait ----- where is THIS rule found? In your constitution/bylaws? Special rules? On the blackboard in the back of the room? Or....

And how is it that someone else gets to vote for a non-voting person (the treasurer)? That makes absolutely no sense at all. Why create a non-voting position and then let someone else vote as if they were that person but with voting rights??? <-what I look like after eating steaming cobnuts.