Caryn Ann Harlos Posted June 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM Report Share Posted June 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM A question came up whether or not the Chair could vote in an oral roll call vote when it wasn't to break or cause a tie. I had said no he cannot based upon the following reasoning but was told I was incorrect. Was this incorrect, and if so, can you please show me how? (all emphases below mine) Page 53 beginning on line 15 Chair's Vote as Part of Announcement, Where it Affects the Vote If the presiding officer is a member of assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or committee however--unless that vote is secret (that is unless iti sb yballot) the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right ONLY when his vote would affect the outcome, in which he CAN either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain. Continuing to page 394, lines 24-29 If the presiding officer is a member of the society, he has -- as an individual --the same right in debate as any other member, but the impartiality required of the chair in an assembly PRECLUDES his exercising those rights while he is presiding. Continuing to page 405, lines 20-24 If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote as any other member WHEN the vote is by ballot. In all other cases the presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, CAN (but is not obligated to) whenever his vote will affect the result -- that is, he can vote to there break or cause a tie... Continuing to page 421, lines 421-423 The roll is called in alphabetical order except that the presiding's officer's name is called last, and only when his vote will affect the results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:06 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:06 PM 24 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said: A question came up whether or not the Chair could vote in an oral roll call vote when it wasn't to break or cause a tie. I had said no he cannot based upon the following reasoning but was told I was incorrect. Was this incorrect, and if so, can you please show me how? (all emphases below mine) Page 53 beginning on line 15 Chair's Vote as Part of Announcement, Where it Affects the Vote If the presiding officer is a member of assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or committee however--unless that vote is secret (that is unless iti sb yballot) the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right ONLY when his vote would affect the outcome, in which he CAN either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain. Continuing to page 394, lines 24-29 If the presiding officer is a member of the society, he has -- as an individual --the same right in debate as any other member, but the impartiality required of the chair in an assembly PRECLUDES his exercising those rights while he is presiding. Continuing to page 405, lines 20-24 If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote as any other member WHEN the vote is by ballot. In all other cases the presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, CAN (but is not obligated to) whenever his vote will affect the result -- that is, he can vote to there break or cause a tie... Continuing to page 421, lines 421-423 The roll is called in alphabetical order except that the presiding's officer's name is called last, and only when his vote will affect the results. The only reason I can think of as to why you were told that you were wrong is that it is not correct to say that the presiding officer can vote only "to break or cause a tie." He may vote whenever his vote will affect the result. The question being voted on may require something other than a majority vote for its adoption (a two-thirds vote, for example). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:25 PM Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:25 PM The question we were voting on was a simple majority. Thank you for the correction on the correct terminology. I am the secretary of this body, so I don't call the chair in the roll call of votes unless his vote will affect the results, but every once in a while the chair will interject that he votes a certain way anyways. He usually does not. (and we are not a small board, just to be clear on that, we have 17 voting members) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:26 PM Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:26 PM Oh and the rationale for saying I was incorrect was that these rules are "should nots" and not "can nots." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:54 PM Report Share Posted June 2, 2020 at 12:54 PM 22 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said: Oh and the rationale for saying I was incorrect was that these rules are "should nots" and not "can nots." Well, if your chair insists on doing things that he shouldn't do it reflects poorly on him, of course, but I suppose he just doesn't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 7, 2020 at 02:53 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2020 at 02:53 AM On 6/2/2020 at 6:22 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said: A question came up whether or not the Chair could vote in an oral roll call vote when it wasn't to break or cause a tie. I had said no he cannot based upon the following reasoning but was told I was incorrect. Was this incorrect, and if so, can you please show me how? (all emphases below mine) On 6/2/2020 at 7:26 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said: Oh and the rationale for saying I was incorrect was that these rules are "should nots" and not "can nots." On 6/2/2020 at 7:54 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said: Well, if your chair insists on doing things that he shouldn't do it reflects poorly on him, of course, but I suppose he just doesn't care. I believe that the question being asked is (or should be), "If the chair is a member of the assembly, does he have the right to vote in a roll call vote if he insists on it even if his vote will not affect the outcome and the assembly is not using the small board rules?" I believe the first sentence of the answer to FAQ # 1 provides the answer: "If the president is a member of the voting body, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote on all questions." https://robertsrules.com/faq.html#1 See also this provision on page 53: "If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or a committee, however—unless the vote is secret (that is, unless it is by ballot; 45)—the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome, in which case he can either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain. A search of the forum will reveal several threads over the years where it is made clear that the presiding officer, if he is a member of the assembly, has the right to vote but should not vote in order to preserve his appearance of impartiality. In conclusion, it seems clear to me that the so-called prohibition on the chair voting is a should not rule, not a cannot rule and that the chair may indeed vote if he insists on doing so. Whether there will be consequences from the assembly for doing so is another matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryn Ann Harlos Posted June 7, 2020 at 03:04 AM Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2020 at 03:04 AM That makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted June 7, 2020 at 03:13 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2020 at 03:13 AM 8 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said: That makes sense. As Mr. Brown's responses generally do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts