Chair no vote but can he debate and move

[Guest Kozzea]

We are a community of several hundred and a board of 15

In our bylaws it states that the chai may not vote unless to break a tie.

It's my understanding that because our board is a small community association that the chair should have a vote and be able to debate and make motions.

If our bylaws keep the chair from voting do they still have the right to move and debate?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its bylaws. See FAQ #1 for the case where there is no bylaw provision regarding a chair voting to break a tie. Perhaps your association could amend its bylaws to remove that restriction so that the default rules in RONR apply.

[George Mervosh]

When interpreting this provision, Principle of Interpretation #6 on p. 590 of RONR may be of help.

[Edgar Guest]

If our bylaws keep the chair from voting do they still have the right to move and debate?

 

Why wouldn't they?

 

In other words, if someone is claiming that the chair, who is presumably a member of the board, doesn't have the same right as other members to make motions and engage in debate, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate that claim. If all they can say is, "if he can't vote he can't do anything else", I would remain unconvinced.

[Gary Novosielski]

We are a community of several hundred and a board of 15

In our bylaws it states that the chai may not vote unless to break a tie.

It's my understanding that because our board is a small community association that the chair should have a vote and be able to debate and make motions.

If our bylaws keep the chair from voting do they still have the right to move and debate?

 

 

It also may be possible that the rules against the chair voting may apply only to general membership meetings, and not board meetings.   Again, it depends on exactly what your bylaws, in their totality, say. 

 

According to RONR, it is not the case that the chair may only vote in case of a tie.  But your bylaws supersede any contrary rule in RONR.

[Guest KOZZEA]

So if I understand correctly chair may not vote unless of a tie per our bylaws.

 

However thier is no evidence that supports the chair not being able to debate. or motion.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . there is no evidence that supports the chair not being able to debate. or motion.

 

None that I've seen.

[Richard Brown]

Perhaps we should point out to guest Kozzea that RONR does say, in  several places, that although the chair MAY vote, make motions and participate in debate, he should not do so in order to insure the appearance of fairness and impartiality.  There is an exception in committees and small boards of no more than "about a dozen" members which does provide that the chair may participate to the same extent as other members in those situations.  If your board elects to go by what RONR calls the "Small Board Rules", the chair will have greater latitude to participate unless your bylaws prohibit it.

[Gary Novosielski]

So if I understand correctly chair may not vote unless of a tie per our bylaws.

 

However thier is no evidence that supports the chair not being able to debate. or motion.

 

The chair should not participate in debate, unless in a small board situation, and the same goes for making motions.  Under the rules in RONR, however, the chair may freely vote when the vote is by ballot, or whenever his single vote would make a difference in the outcome.  He may also freely not vote if he likes the outcome as it is.  So as you can see this is not really an abridgment of his right to vote.

 

Your rules would supersede these rules, where they come into conflict, which they apparently do (if, as you point out, you understand your bylaws).  Have you actually seen this rule in print?

[Guest KOZZEA]

Yes. it is in print. And because we are a group of 15 we do not qualify for small group rules?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Why wouldn't they?

 

In other words, if someone is claiming that the chair, who is presumably a member of the board, doesn't have the same right as other members to make motions and engage in debate, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate that claim. If all they can say is, "if he can't vote he can't do anything else", I would remain unconvinced.

 

So if I understand correctly chair may not vote unless of a tie per our bylaws.

 

However thier is no evidence that supports the chair not being able to debate. or motion.

 

None that I've seen.

 

Even though there may well be more than about a dozen (board) members at the board meetings, and even though the bylaws (reportedly) say that the chair cannot vote unless to break a tie, you see no evidence that this association wants the chair to remain impartial during board meetings?

[Richard Brown]

Yes. it is in print. And because we are a group of 15 we do not qualify for small group rules?

It's up to your board, if it has the power to adopt its own rules of procedure, to decide whether to follow the regular rules or the "Small board rules".  RONR carefully uses the term "no more than about a dozen members" to grant latitude to individual organizations to decide for themselves which rules to use.  The "small board rules" primarily allow for a bit less formality and allow the chair to participate to a greater extent than with the regular rules.   It does not say "exactly" a dozen.  it says "about" a dozen. 

[Josh Martin]

It's up to your board, if it has the power to adopt its own rules of procedure, to decide whether to follow the regular rules or the "Small board rules".  RONR carefully uses the term "no more than about a dozen members" to grant latitude to individual organizations to decide for themselves which rules to use.  The "small board rules" primarily allow for a bit less formality and allow the chair to participate to a greater extent than with the regular rules.   It does not say "exactly" a dozen.  it says "about" a dozen. 

More precisely, the rules say that the small board rules are used in boards with no more than about a dozen members present.

[Richard Brown]

More precisely, the rules say that the small board rules are used in boards with no more than about a dozen members present.

Well, even more precisely, RONR has slightly contradictory provisions regarding the "small board rules".  The language you quoted comes from page 488.  But, on pages 9 - 10, it says:  "Whenever reference is made in this book to "small boards," the size implied will depend somewhat on conditions, but such boards are usually to be understood as [page 10] consisting of not more than about a dozen persons."    That provision says nothing about the numbers of board members present, but rather refers to the size of the board itself.

[Josh Martin]

Well, even more precisely, RONR has slightly contradictory provisions regarding the "small board rules".  The language you quoted comes from page 488.  But, on pages 9 - 10, it says:  "Whenever reference is made in this book to "small boards," the size implied will depend somewhat on conditions, but such boards are usually to be understood as [page 10] consisting of not more than about a dozen persons."    That provision says nothing about the numbers of board members present, but rather refers to the size of the board itself.

Perhaps the number of members present is one of the "conditions" the text is referring to on pgs. 9-10.

[Guest KOZZEA]

Well are we sure that its board members its referring to or members in general? Not all members are voting board members. Residents number in hundreds so if they are present as non voting member how does this affect the Small groups term?

[Edgar Guest]

Even though there may well be more than about a dozen (board) members at the board meetings, and even though the bylaws (reportedly) say that the chair cannot vote unless to break a tie, you see no evidence that this association wants the chair to remain impartial during board meetings?

 

Well, I think we all want the chair to remain impartial. I just haven't seen any evidence that this chair is prohibited from (i.e. is not able to) make motions and engage in debate.

 

By the way, I saw the OP as asking whether a member who couldn't vote could still make motions and debate. The fact that this person was the chair (of a presumably "small" board) seemed (to me) of secondary importance.

[Edgar Guest]

Well are we sure that its board members its referring to or members in general?

 

We're sure. It's just board members. Those present who aren't members of the board are guests, whether they belong to the association or not.

[Josh Martin]

Well are we sure that its board members its referring to or members in general? Not all members are voting board members. Residents number in hundreds so if they are present as non voting member how does this affect the Small groups term?

It doesn't affect it at all. The small board rules are based on how many members of the board are present. The fact that the board permits members of the society to be present does not make those people members of the board, voting or otherwise.

As for "non-voting members" of the board (if your bylaws do provide for any), it will be your society's problem to sort out how that affects the application of the small board rules. RONR does not have "non-voting members," so it does not address such issues.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well are we sure that its board members its referring to or members in general? Not all members are voting board members. Residents number in hundreds so if they are present as non voting member how does this affect the Small groups term?

 

Not at all.  

 

Members, in this context refer to members of the body that is meeting.  Residents, in this context, are considered "guests". 

[Gary c Tesser]

...  As for "non-voting members" of the board (if your bylaws do provide for any), it will be your society's problem to sort out how that affects the application of the small board rules. RONR does not have "non-voting members," so it does not address such issues.

 

Thanks.  I was just too tired to beat that damn zombie horse this time.