Guest maple person Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:35 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:35 PM We have a 9 member board of directors. I had always thought that the president did not vote on matters unless to break a tie, but a newly elected director feels the President votes on all matters. Can you please correct me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:46 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 02:46 PM In a small (~12 or fewer) board the president can be a full participant. p. 487. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:00 PM We have a 9 member board of directors. I had always thought that the president did not vote on matters unless to break a tie, but a newly elected director feels the President votes on all matters. Can you please correct me.In a board of that size, the rules for small boards and committees would apply, which allow the presiding officer to vote on all questions, if he is a member. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 488, ll. 18-20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:01 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:01 PM FAQ #1 is feeling unloved http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:09 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:09 PM FAQ #1 is feeling unloved http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1It handles the MOST frequently asked question, so I'm sure it's enjoying the break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:30 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:30 PM We have a 9 member board of directors. I had always thought that the president did not vote on matters unless to break a tie, but a newly elected director feels the President votes on all matters. Can you please correct me.FAQ #1 is feeling unloved http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1Guest_maple_person, do pay attention to the language shift in FAQ #1 from "president" to "presiding officer" to "chair", as well as from "break a tie" to "affect the result" [of the vote]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:38 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:38 PM On page 9, 11th edition, RONR, it states: "In small boards and committees, most parliamentary rules apply, but certain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are commonly allowed."If a small board wishes to use the large board rules, would they not be able to, by a decision of that board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 03:40 PM On page 9, 11th edition, RONR, it states: "In small boards and committees, most parliamentary rules apply, but certain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are commonly allowed."If a small board wishes to use the large board rules, would they not be able to, by a decision of that board?Yes. This question (president voting to break a tie) pops up with great regularlity, and your question occasionally is included in the responses that follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rthib Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:03 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:03 PM Yes. This question (president voting to break a tie) pops up with great regularlity, and your question occasionally is included in the responses that follow.And it is not just to break a tie. The president can vote to cause a tie (and thus defeat) of a motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:26 PM On page 9, 11th edition, RONR, it states: "In small boards and committees, most parliamentary rules apply, but certain modifications permitting greater flexibility and informality are commonly allowed."If a small board wishes to use the large board rules, would they not be able to, by a decision of that board?If you're referring to adopting a special rule of order to that effect, see p. 486, ll. 17-19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:38 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:38 PM If you're referring to adopting a special rule of order to that effect, see p. 486, ll. 17-19.I do not think that the rules in RONR preclude maple person's board from deciding for itself whether or not it will follow the informal procedures described on pages 487-88. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 04:53 PM I do not think that the rules in RONR preclude maple person's board from deciding for itself whether or not it will follow the informal procedures described on pages 487-88.I doubt that it could adopt such a special rule of order that would have continuing force until rescinded. It seems tantamount to adopting any other special rule of order that would, for example, limit the number of speeches in debate. The board's ability to decide how to conduct itself during any given session is a different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2013 at 05:00 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 05:00 PM I doubt that it could adopt such a special rule of order that would have continuing force until rescinded. It seems tantamount to adopting any other special rule of order that would, for example, limit the number of speeches in debate. In this connection, I suffer from no such doubts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 21, 2013 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 06:23 PM In this connection, I suffer from no such doubts. Okay, you're certain. Of what are you certain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2013 at 07:06 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 07:06 PM Okay, you're certain. Of what are you certain? I'm quite sure that nothing in RONR precludes maple person's board from deciding for itself whether or not it will follow the informal procedures described on pages 487-88. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 21, 2013 at 09:05 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2013 at 09:05 PM Yes. This question (president voting to break a tie) pops up with great regularlity, and your question occasionally is included in the responses that follow.And it is not just to break a tie. The president can vote to cause a tie (and thus defeat) of a motion.And I'm fairly confident that falls within the....."affect the result" [of the vote].concept to which I referred in my previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 22, 2013 at 05:53 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 at 05:53 AM We have a 9 member board of directors. I had always thought that the president did not vote on matters unless to break a tie, but a newly elected director feels the President votes on all matters. Can you please correct me.You stand corrected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.