Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Board of Director Voting Rights


Guest Nathan

Recommended Posts

I've never understood why our guests so often focus on the question of whether or not a presiding officer should refrain from voting since, no matter how large the assembly, he is never obliged to refrain from voting whenever his vote will (or may, in the case of a ballot vote) make any difference. It makes much more sense to focus on other questions relating to his involvement in the proceedings, such as whether or not he should speak in debate, since this may, in fact, make a difference.

 

(All of this assumes, of course, that the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, and that the rules in RONR apply.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why our guests so often focus on the question of whether or not a presiding officer should refrain from voting since, no matter how large the assembly, he is never obliged to refrain from voting whenever his vote will (or may, in the case of a ballot vote) make any difference. It makes much more sense to focus on other questions relating to his involvement in the proceedings, such as whether or not he should speak in debate, since this may, in fact, make a difference.

 

(All of this assumes, of course, that the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, and that the rules in RONR apply.)

 

I've asked myself the same thing.  Since, as you say, the chair can always vote whenever it could possibly matter, I think the questions must be coming from people who disagree with the chair on some issue, and are seeking some justification for preventing the chair from voting on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never understood why our guests so often focus on the question of whether or not a presiding officer should refrain from voting since, no matter how large the assembly, he is never obliged to refrain from voting whenever his vote will (or may, in the case of a ballot vote) make any difference. It makes much more sense to focus on other questions relating to his involvement in the proceedings, such as whether or not he should speak in debate, since this may, in fact, make a difference.

 

I think it's just due to the widely held erroneous belief that the presiding officer cannot vote or votes only in case of a tie.  And in small clubs people are used to the president being an active participant.  

 

I'm constantly amazed at the strongly held but erroneous beliefs about parliamentary procedure.  To be uninformed is one thing and I can understand how some people just don't care about it and don't know anything about it and don't pretend to know anything.  But I am at a loss to explain how some people  are convinced that their screwball ideas from somewhere out in left field are absolutely correct and they will stand up in meetings and claim to be an authority on the subject.  I've heard some new ones in just the past two hours about a contentious meeting that took place yesterday.   I would love to know where some people get their crazy ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I am at a loss to explain how some people  are convinced that their screwball ideas from somewhere out in left field are absolutely correct and they will stand up in meetings and claim to be an authority on the subject.

 

Me too. Which is why I stay far away from churches, temples, and mosques.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...