Presiding officer's right to vote

[Guest Chaim Stepelman]

In the response to the first question on the FAQs page (http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1) it distinguishes between the rights of the presiding officer to vote in a small board (no limitations) vs a large board (only by ballot or when the vote will affect the result).  I can't seem to find any such distinction in the full Robert's Rules of Order.  

 

Is there an actual basis for such a distinction?

 

Also, would there be reason to distinguish between the presiding officer over the meeting of the board vs the chairman of a committee?

 

Thanks!

Chaim Stepelman

[Dan Honemann]

In the response to the first question on the FAQs page (http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1) it distinguishes between the rights of the presiding officer to vote in a small board (no limitations) vs a large board (only by ballot or when the vote will affect the result).  I can't seem to find any such distinction in the full Robert's Rules of Order.  

 

Is there an actual basis for such a distinction?

 

Also, would there be reason to distinguish between the presiding officer over the meeting of the board vs the chairman of a committee?

 

Thanks!

Chaim Stepelman

 

RONR, 11th ed., pages 43, 394–395, 488.

 

There is no reason to distinguish between the officer presiding over the meeting of a small board vs the chairman of a committee in this regard (p. 500).

[Guest Chaim Stepelman]

Thank you.

 

The latest version I can find online is only the 10th edition though.  Would you be able to quote the relevant text, particularly regarding the distinction between the presiding officer's right to vote in a small board vs his limitations in a large one?

 

Much appreciated.

 

Chaim 

[Larry Cisar]

Rather than asking for a quote from the current book, you should get a copy. It will make you up-to-date when looking for the answers to your parliamentary questions.

[Guest Chaim Stepelman]

Sorry, I meant that I only see the 4th edition online.

 

Thanks,

Chaim

[Gary c Tesser]

Sorry, I meant that I only see the 4th edition online.

 

Thanks,

Chaim

 

Me too.  It's from 1915.  So after tonight, I calculate that it will have been on the Internet for a hundred years.  That's why we encourage you to get the 11th Edition, which, by a comparable calculation, was published in 2011.  You scoff that that's coincidence?  Hah.  YOu're probably one of these liberal deniers who say that Barack Obama was not born on the planet Xerxes.  Why do you think he refused to produce his Hawaii birth certificate the 2376 times we asked for it, after about the 2100th copy?  And don't get me started on the Deros from under the Earth's crust, manipulating everything.  I would go on but I got an early meeting of my Bavarian Illuminati chapter I'm late for.  And then there's a Shachris meeting I got to rush off to, from another international conspiracy club I'm a member of.

[Dan Honemann]

Sorry, I meant that I only see the 4th edition online.

 

Thanks,

Chaim

 

Get yourself the 11th ed., but in the meantime, as to boards, look at the paragraph which begins at the bottom of page 208, and as to committees, the one beginning on page 212,

[Gary c Tesser]

Isn't that what I said?

[jstackpo]

Your inner thetan bargled your outout.

[Dan Honemann]

Isn't that what I said?

 

Then it must be worth repeating.

[Richard Brown]

Get yourself the 11th ed., but in the meantime, as to boards, look at the paragraph which begins at the bottom of page 208, and as to committees, the one beginning on page 212,

 

Isn't that what I said?

You mentioned page numbers?   Gee, some sort of internet bug must have infected the version of your post that I see on screen. 

 

But, I think we all agree that Mr (?) Stepelman needs to get himself a copy of the 11th edition.  Trying to get by with a 100 year old version doesn't strike me as the best of practices....but I also suppose it's better than nothing.    There's nothing like having "The Real Thing", aka, "The Right Book", aka RONR 11th edition.