Tie vote

[Guest Anne]

I have a Board with 5 members.  One resigned leaving 4 on the Board.  An interim director must be approved until the next AGM

We have 2 members voting for one member and 1 voting for another.  The Chair has not voted yet...but she can vote to cause a tie.

If we have a tie, how do we appoint the next Board member? We only have the 2 candidates.

[Transpower]

The voting should continue until one of the candidates wins a majority (i.e., one the board members switches his/her vote).  Or, presumably, a third candidate could be nominated....

[Guest Anne]

Thanks Transpower.  Can the members agree to simply place both names in a hat and draw a winner?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Can the members agree to simply place both names in a hat and draw a winner?

 

Is such a provision in the bylaws? Also, do the bylaws give the board the power to fill vacancies?

[Guest Guest]

Good point.  There is no provision in the bylaws for names in a hat.  There is a provision for power to fill the vacancy until the next AGM whereby the candidate would then have to be elected.

[Richard Brown]

Since the assembly can adopt a motion setting forth the method of conducting the election and voting, I believe a motion could be adopted that in the event of a tie, the winner will be determined by lot.  But, even if such a motion would be out of order, or perhaps require a suspension of the rules, the candidates can agree among themselves, as is often done, that one of them will withdraw from the race and they can determine which one of them it will be by any means they agree upon between themselves.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Since the assembly can adopt a motion setting forth the method of conducting the election and voting, I believe a motion could be adopted that in the event of a tie, the winner will be determined by lot.  But, even if such a motion would be out of order, or perhaps require a suspension of the rules, the candidates can agree among themselves, as is often done, that one of them will withdraw from the race and they can determine which one of them it will be by any means they agree upon between themselves.

 

Would the board be able to do that without authorization from the general membership?

[Richard Brown]

Would the board be able to do that without authorization from the general membership?

Good question.  I don't know, but it seems to me that if the board is authorized to fill the vacancy, it can also determine the method of voting unless it is dictated by the bylaws.  But,  regardless of that, the candidates can still agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw and that they will determine which one it will be by any method they want: drawing names out of a hat, drawing straws, having a foot race, hot dog eating contest or drinking contest.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Good question.  I don't know, but it seems to me that if the board is authorized to fill the vacancy, it can also determine the method of voting unless it is dictated by the bylaws.  But,  regardless of that, the candidates can still agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw and that they will determine which one it will be by any method they want: drawing names out of a hat, drawing straws, having a foot race, hot dog eating contest or drinking contest.

 

What if the candidates do not agree to this?

[Gary Novosielski]

What if the candidates do not agree to this?

They can't agree to anything they don't agree on.  But the voters could still agree, informally, that a coin toss would determine the winner by agreeing to change their vote based upon the outcome.

 

Again, they would have to agree in order to agree, but that's pretty much a prerequisite to any agreement.

 

The most reliable way to end the deadlock is to serve lots of hot coffee, and take the next vote when someone leaves for the bathroom.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

They can't agree to anything they don't agree on.  But the voters could still agree, informally, that a coin toss would determine the winner by agreeing to change their vote based upon the outcome.

 

Again, they would have to agree in order to agree, but that's pretty much a prerequisite to any agreement.

 

The most reliable way to end the deadlock is to serve lots of hot coffee, and take the next vote when someone leaves for the bathroom.

 

So as long as the board could agree to do something, they're allowed to do it even though it's not provided for in the bylaws or some other rule?

[Josh Martin]

If we have a tie, how do we appoint the next Board member? We only have the 2 candidates.

Keep voting until there isn't a tie.

Thanks Transpower.  Can the members agree to simply place both names in a hat and draw a winner?

Yes, although a motion to Suspend the Rules will be required in order to do so. Such a motion requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

This will absolutely not be in order if the bylaws require a ballot vote, but I doubt the bylaws specify such details for filling vacancies.

Would the board be able to do that without authorization from the general membership?

Yes. If the board is authorized to fill vacancies, it is up to the board to determine how to fill the vacancy.

So as long as the board could agree to do something, they're allowed to do it even though it's not provided for in the bylaws or some other rule?

Well, that's far too broad a statement for a blanket "yes" or "no" answer. In my opinion, the board may agree to do this something, even though it is not provided for in the bylaws or some other rule, although it will require a suspension of the rules. Again, this assumes that the bylaws do not require a ballot vote.

[Richard Brown]

So as long as the board could agree to do something, they're allowed to do it even though it's not provided for in the bylaws or some other rule?

Hieu, I think so.  Without taking the time right now (time that I don't have) to analyze it in depth, it seems to that an organization can do pretty much whatever it wants to do as long as it isn't prohibited by law, by the bylaws, or by some other rule. The bylaws can't possibly be expected to cover all contingencies.  

 

I think, though, that Mr. Novosielski is talking about the members agreeing informally among themselves to toss a coin and to vote accordingly. 

[Josh Martin]

Hieu, I think so. Without taking the time right now (time that I don't have) to analyze it in depth, it seems to that an organization can do pretty much whatever it wants to do as long as it isn't prohibited by law, by the bylaws, or by some other rule. The bylaws can't possibly be expected to cover all contingencies.

I think, though, that Mr. Novosielski is talking about the members agreeing informally among themselves to toss a coin and to vote accordingly.

It is quite correct "that an organization can do pretty much whatever it wants to do as long as it isn't prohibited by law, by the bylaws, or by some other rule" (emphasis added). Mr. Huynh's question, however, was not about what the organization can do, but what the organization's board can do. That question is quite a bit more complicated.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It is quite correct "that an organization can do pretty much whatever it wants to do as long as it isn't prohibited by law, by the bylaws, or by some other rule" (emphasis added). Mr. Huynh's question, however, was not about what the organization can do, but what the organization's board can do. That question is quite a bit more complicated.

 

Yes, that was my concern. I know that the membership could suspend the rules to allow for a tie-breaker. I just wasn't sure if the board could do that without authorization from the membership, the bylaws or some other rule.

[George Mervosh]

Yes, that was my concern. I know that the membership could suspend the rules to allow for a tie-breaker. I just wasn't sure if the board could do that without authorization from the membership, the bylaws or some other rule.

 

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above."  RONR (11th ed.), p.486.

 

In this case, as Josh notes in post #12, the board is simply using the parliamentary motion to suspend the rules, which is fine, as long as the bylaws don't require a ballot vote in such a case.  It's when the Board starts adopting rules that it gets a bit trickier, since those rules absolutely must not conflict with the society's rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

So as long as the board could agree to do something, they're allowed to do it even though it's not provided for in the bylaws or some other rule?

But changing their votes is something they're allowed to do.