Guest Margaret Au Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:23 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:23 AM I belong to a small doggie club and there are 8 Board members. The President is a member of the voting body. She has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. We now have a situation where there were 4 "yes" and 4 "no" votes. There is nothing mentioned in our Bylaws for a tie breaker. The ex-President is now the current Treasurer who also voted for the particular motion. My question is "who will be the most appropriate person to break a tie?". Thanks in advance for your comments.Margaret Au Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:05 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:05 AM If this is any motion that is processed in the ordinary way (that is, not an election), there is no tie to break. A motion is adopted if it receives a majority (more than half) of the votes, and it is lost if it doesn't. At 4 to 4, it failed to achieve a majority vote, so the motion is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Margaret Au Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:16 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:16 AM So, how should we handle a "lost" motion? If we renewal the motion, we will still get a 4 to 4 tie votes. What should we do next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Schafer Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:34 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:34 AM Whether a motion is lost on a vote of 4-4 or 0-8, the result is the same. In the future, if the motion is renewed and voted again and the result is 4-4, it is still lost (or defeated). If you want to keep trying, you could wait until someone who votes against the motion leaves the room. Then I suppose the vote would be 4-3 and would be adopted.But if the vote is tied, the motion is defeated just as it would be if everyone voted against it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Margaret Au Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:41 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 06:41 AM Great Idea Matt We will put forward the motion again when someone who votes against the motion absent from a meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 31, 2012 at 10:41 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 10:41 AM I wouldn't call it a great idea. Subterfuge is rarely a great idea. Pays off now and then, but not usually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted August 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM So, Matt. You often get this kind of thanks?Do beware, Guest_Margaret Au_, that sort of strategy can be seen as dirty pool. And if one side of a divided body begins, then the other side might feel entitled to use it too. (I will agree that when -- not "if" -- the "no" side of an issue finds itself with a majority at a meeting, it's somewhat harder for them to enact their agenda. But still.)___________N. B. Note to parliamentarians (and aspiring parliamentarians like me and, say, maybe SMargaret and Louise and ... hmm, why are the stellar newbies on the forum women? -- I don't mean me this time!). I use "agenda" here in its colloquial, not parliamentary, sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted August 31, 2012 at 01:00 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 01:00 PM I wouldn't call it a great idea. Subterfuge is rarely a great idea. Pays off now and then, but not usually.I guess it depends on what Margaret Au_ meant when she used the icon to comment on the 'great idea'. That particular emoticon doesn't usually signify wholehearted approval and delight. Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted August 31, 2012 at 03:35 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 03:35 PM N. B. Note to parliamentarians (and aspiring parliamentarians like me and, say, maybe SMargaret and Louise and ... hmm, why are the stellar newbies on the forum women? -- I don't mean me this time!).*Cough* *Sputter* *Snort*"Stellar newbie" and "Louise" in the same sentence? Surely you jest! My head is still spinning, with Robert's Rules dancing about in there in complete mayhem with no order whatsoever. (Although I'm working on bringing order to the situation, truly I am.)"Newbie" and "Louise" go together far better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted August 31, 2012 at 04:12 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 04:12 PM If this is any motion that is processed in the ordinary way (that is, not an election), there is no tie to break.I'm trying to decide whether this is an accurate statement. If there is a tie, then there is certainly a tie, even if there is no need to, and no way to, break it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:15 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:15 PM It seems to me that the importance or necessity of breaking a tie vote on a motion depends on the nature of the motion and the overall situation that led to the motion. For example, if a member wants the club to have WiFi in the clubhouse and makes such a motion, then it doesn't matter whether that motion fails by a tie vote (4-4, for example) or 1-7 or any other vote that is not a majority of those present and voting.On the other hand, if a storm has severaly damaged the clubhouse roof and repairs must be made immediately to prevent severe additional damage, and the motion is to engage Smith Construction to repair/replace the roof and that motion fails 4-4 and another motion is made to engage Jones Construction and that motion fails 4-4 -- then there are serious consequences if there continue to be four members adamant for Smith and four members adamant for Jones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louise Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM On the other hand, if a storm has severaly damaged the clubhouse roof and repairs must be made immediately to prevent severe additional damage, and the motion is to engage Smith Construction to repair/replace the roof and that motion fails 4-4 and another motion is made to engage Jones Construction and that motion fails 4-4 -- then there are serious consequences if there continue to be four members adamant for Smith and four members adamant for Jones.In such a case, perhaps they need to find a third construction company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Schafer Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:24 PM My comment about voting on the motion when one member from the other side left the room was intended at least half tongue-in-cheek. While this is one way to get something done, as others have pointed out, it's certainly not the best way to do it. This kind of tactic quickly degenerates and makes it difficult for any deliberative assembly to get things done. The best way to do it is to debate the issue and convince one more person to vote your way.My apologies for not being clearer in making a suggestion in jest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:32 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:32 PM It seems to me that the importance or necessity of breaking a tie vote on a motion depends on the nature of the motion and the overall situation that led to the motion. For example, if a member wants the club to have WiFi in the clubhouse and makes such a motion, then it doesn't matter whether that motion fails by a tie vote (4-4, for example) or 1-7 or any other vote that is not a majority of those present and voting.On the other hand, if a storm has severaly damaged the clubhouse roof and repairs must be made immediately to prevent severe additional damage, and the motion is to engage Smith Construction to repair/replace the roof and that motion fails 4-4 and another motion is made to engage Jones Construction and that motion fails 4-4 -- then there are serious consequences if there continue to be four members adamant for Smith and four members adamant for Jones.But is there any parliamentary significance to such a situation? Until a majority agrees on which construction company to use, the roof will continue to leak, and no rule in RONR prevents that. Whether it's a leaky roof, a donation to a charity, or whether to have pizza delivered, a tie vote expresses the will of the assembly regardless of how important the decision appears to some. If Smith Construction and Jones were both defeated 0-8, there's be no parliamentary difference between those votes and tie votes. Somebody better run to True Value and get some buckets. (And while he's out, move to contract with Robert's Construction).The mystical aura surrounding the ostensibly necessary tie-breaking vote seems to stem from the same mythology that only the president can break a tie, and otherwise does not vote, and other parliamentary fantacies, propogated by those unfamiliar with RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:41 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:41 PM . . . and other parliamentary fantacies, propogated by those unfamiliar with RONR.The last thing anyone should do is propogate fantacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:44 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 05:44 PM The last thing anyone should do is propogate fantacies.Dammed spill chuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 31, 2012 at 10:13 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 10:13 PM If this is any motion that is processed in the ordinary way (that is, not an election), there is no tie to break. A motion is adopted if it receives a majority (more than half) of the votes, and it is lost if it doesn't. At 4 to 4, it failed to achieve a majority vote, so the motion is lost.I'm trying to decide whether this is an accurate statement. If there is a tie, then there is certainly a tie, even if there is no need to, and no way to, break it.I'm trying to decide if it's true as well, but I'm looking at it from the other direction--that even if this is an election, a tie vote means the same thing as it does otherwise, that is, the motion is lost. In an election, the lost motion was to fill a blank with the name of a given candidate.In other words, I don't think an election changes the nature or effect of a tie vote. The difference in an election is that a motion to elect ________, unlike an ordinary motion, eventually must be passed in some form. It is usually okay not to paint the clubhouse red, but it is not okay to do without a required officer. And just as with any other other question*, a tie simply isn't good enough to answer a question in the affirmative.______________*Okay, all but one: §24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted August 31, 2012 at 11:41 PM Report Share Posted August 31, 2012 at 11:41 PM But the question remains: My question is "who will be the most appropriate person to break a tie?".And the answer is no one. A tie does not need to be broken (we'll assume in this case, since we have no idea at all what the motion was). The assembly has spoken. This is not a game, where we now go into a five-minute sudden death play-off. Everybody get your voting paddles ready. A tie vote means those who voted no "win" this round. The next order of business is.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted September 1, 2012 at 03:12 AM Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 at 03:12 AM One good way to handle the motion if it keeps coming up is to refer it to a Committee. Perhaps another group of people can come up with an agreeable amendment to the motion which would allow it to pass.Otherwise, any member can move the "Previous Question" as soon as the motion is made and the motion is dealt with in less than a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 1, 2012 at 06:17 AM Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 at 06:17 AM Oh my. Rev Ed has made a couple of good points. Or almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted September 1, 2012 at 02:16 PM Report Share Posted September 1, 2012 at 02:16 PM I belong to a small doggie club and there are 8 Board members. The President is a member of the voting body. She has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions. We now have a situation where there were 4 "yes" and 4 "no" votes. There is nothing mentioned in our Bylaws for a tie breaker. The ex-President is now the current Treasurer who also voted for the particular motion. My question is "who will be the most appropriate person to break a tie?".Margaret Au, just to add a bit to the answers, I will assume that your current President was one of the 8 votes cast, given that the board consists of 8 board members. She doesn't get to vote again - she gets one vote. You asked about the ex-President, who is the current Treasurer and also voted, possibly to ask if she gets to vote as the past president. What role the past president plays is up to your bylaws - RONR doesn't give out a "job description for person who used to be president" - but even if your bylaws allow for the position of past president, she wouldn't be able to cast two votes unless your bylaws specifically allowed for people to hold multiple positions and cast multiple votes. One person, one vote, is the rule in RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 6, 2012 at 02:15 PM Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 at 02:15 PM I meant to ask but lost track ... when you say "a small doggie club," is it the club that's small or the doggies? Or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 6, 2012 at 02:18 PM Report Share Posted September 6, 2012 at 02:18 PM I meant to ask but lost track ... when you say "a small doggie club," is it the club that's small or the doggies? Or both?Both would mean it's a tie........no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.