Can chair vote against own ruling upon appeal?

[David D.]

When a vote is held following a motion to appeal the decision of the chair, is the chair required to vote in a manner consistent with their own ruling (i.e. make a tie)?

The case: An assembly has Bylaws that incorporate Robert's Rules but additionally require a majority of all members for votes on resolutions. In one meeting, a member moved to suspend this particular part of the Bylaws, the effect of which would implement a simple majority standard for just that meeting, allowing his resolution to be adopted more easily. The chair ruled the motion out of order on the grounds that it would violate the rights of absentees. However, the chair was also critical of the absolute majority standard and invited members to appeal his decision in the hopes that it would be overturned. The appeal was made, seconded, discussed, and the vote returned 6-7 against the ruling. According to 24:4(7), the chair could have tied the vote and sustained the decision, but he declined to do so. Then, a member raised an objection that, in refusing to tie the vote, the chair was acting in bad faith in failing to defend his interpretation of Robert's Rules.

What, if any, rules were violated in the chair's decision?

Thank you in advance.

[Rob Elsman]

Members cannot be compelled to vote.  RONR (12th ed.) 45:3.

[J. J.]

First, the chair did not vote against the appeal.  He chose to abstain which, as Mr. Elsman noted, is his right.

Second, a member may vote against his own motion, so voting to overrule his own decision would be permissible. 

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, David D. said:

When a vote is held following a motion to appeal the decision of the chair, is the chair required to vote in a manner consistent with their own ruling (i.e. make a tie)?

No.

12 hours ago, David D. said:

The case: An assembly has Bylaws that incorporate Robert's Rules but additionally require a majority of all members for votes on resolutions. In one meeting, a member moved to suspend this particular part of the Bylaws, the effect of which would implement a simple majority standard for just that meeting, allowing his resolution to be adopted more easily. The chair ruled the motion out of order on the grounds that it would violate the rights of absentees. However, the chair was also critical of the absolute majority standard and invited members to appeal his decision in the hopes that it would be overturned. The appeal was made, seconded, discussed, and the vote returned 6-7 against the ruling. According to 24:4(7), the chair could have tied the vote and sustained the decision, but he declined to do so. Then, a member raised an objection that, in refusing to tie the vote, the chair was acting in bad faith in failing to defend his interpretation of Robert's Rules.

What, if any, rules were violated in the chair's decision?

The chair's decision violates no rule.

In fact, as I think on this further, I am not certain the chair's ruling was correct to begin with. A rule which requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption only protects absentees if less than a majority of the entire membership is present. If at least a majority of the entire members is present, those members could vote to adopt a resolution, and the rights of absentees would not enter into it. Similarly, there is no violation of the rights of absentees if the rules are suspended so that a majority of those present and voting is sufficient for the duration of the present session. So it is probably just as well that the chair did not defend an incorrect interpretation.

A motion to suspend the rules requires a 2/3 vote for its adoption, however, so if the members who felt so strongly about this wished to prevent the rule's suspension, they could simply vote against the motion to suspend the rules.

(I am assuming that a majority of the entire membership was, in fact, present, since we are told this change would have meant that a resolution could be adopted more easily. This wording seems to imply that the adoption of the motion still would have been possible even without this change.)

Edited December 9, 2020 at 03:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No.

The chair's decision violates no rule.

Based upon the facts presented, it appears to me that the assembly erred in its decision, since the chair's ruling that the rule could not be suspended as it protects the rights of absentees was absolutely correct and therefore should have been upheld on appeal. The chair, however, bears no greater responsibility for this error than do the seven members who voted against sustaining the ruling.

If members are critical of the rule which requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership for all resolutions (a position I am inclined to agree with), the proper course of action is to amend the rule in question, following the proper procedures for amending the bylaws to do so.

Doesn't the part of this response which I have bolded assume that a majority of the entire membership was not present?

[Josh Martin]

33 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Doesn't the part of this response which I have bolded assume that a majority of the entire membership was not present?

Yes, I rethought this and edited my response shortly after.

[David D.]

58 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

(I am assuming that a majority of the entire membership was, in fact, present, since we are told this change would have meant that a resolution could be adopted more easily. This wording seems to imply that the adoption of the motion still would have been possible even without this change.)

Yes, you're correct. In this meeting, 15/25 members were present, and 13 would be required to pass a resolution. The rationale for the decision was that suspending the rule would change the effect of a member's absence, since the current effect is to vote no. In suspending this rule, the effect of absence would be abstention on any resolution votes. However, this consideration is not mentioned in 25:10, so I can see why the chair's ruling would be incorrect.

It seems that everyone involved simply voted according to their stance on the resolution, not the question of the interpretation of the rules. The chair could have clarified to members how they should vote on the appeal question, but I can see why no rule was violated here.

Thank you.

[Geoff Alan]

Isn't the point of bylaws (as opposed to rules) that they can not be suspended unless there is a provision in the bylaw or otherwise in some violation?  I would assume going through the proper procedure for amending bylaws is the only correct solution if they want to change it? I am studying the topic and not yet an expert, so I am just looking for clarification.

Edited December 9, 2020 at 04:49 PM by Geoff Alan

[David D.]

Just now, Geoff Alan said:

Isn't the point of bylaws (as opposed to rules) that they can not be suspended unless there is a provision in the bylaw or otherwise in some violation?  I would assume going through the proper procedure for amending bylaws is the only correct solution if they want to change it?

In this case, the Bylaws have a provision that a section can be suspended with a two-thirds vote.

[Josh Martin]

14 minutes ago, Geoff Alan said:

Isn't the point of bylaws (as opposed to rules) that they can not be suspended unless there is a provision in the bylaw or otherwise in some violation?

The bylaws may be suspended if the bylaws include a provision for their own suspension or if the rule in question is in the nature of a rule of order, which this rule is.

In the latter case, the same limitations on suspending the rules apply as for suspending other rules of order. One of those limitations is that a rule protecting absentees may not be suspended, however, a rule requiring a vote of a majority of the entire membership only protects absentees if less than a majority of the entire membership is present.

9 minutes ago, David D. said:

In this case, the Bylaws have a provision that a section can be suspended with a two-thirds vote.

If this is the case, it may well be that the rule in question could be suspended even if there was less than a majority of the members present (assuming the assembly would still have quorum in that situation), since the bylaws take precedence over RONR. If the society's intent is that certain rules in the bylaws cannot be suspended, it would be prudent to amend the bylaws to clarify this rule.

Edited December 9, 2020 at 05:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

8 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

A motion to suspend the rules requires a 2/3 vote for its adoption, however, so if the members who felt so strongly about this wished to prevent the rule's suspension, they could simply vote against the motion to suspend the rules.

But what about the requirement [25:2(7)] that no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule?

Would this not mean that the rule requiring a majority of the entire membership could not be suspended by less than a majority of the entire membership, even if more than a 2/3 vote?

 

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 

Edited December 10, 2020 at 12:37 AM by Richard Brown
Deleted post, got confused as to the facts

[Richard Brown]

16 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But what about the requirement [25:2(7)] that no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule?

Would this not mean that the rule requiring a majority of the entire membership could not be suspended by less than a majority of the entire membership, even if more than a 2/3 vote?

 

That is my understanding, too. 

[J. J.]

15 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But what about the requirement [25:2(7)] that no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule?

Would this not mean that the rule requiring a majority of the entire membership could not be suspended by less than a majority of the entire membership, even if more than a 2/3 vote?

 

The question would be if a point of order could be raised at the time.  I think, yes, it could be.

This is the situation as I understand it.  There are 25 members, 15 of which are present.  A motion to suspend the rules is adopted, say with 10 members voting in favor.  A point of order could be raised, at the time, at the rule could not be suspended because the rule protects a minority of 13 members in this case.

No point of order is raised at the time, in my particular scenario.  No point of order could raised later because a majority of the entire membership was present.  The assembly, at that point, had the ability to suspend the rule.

Now, if there was a timely point of order, and less than a majority of the entire membership voted to suspend the rules, I think a point of order, could be raised in the future.  The ground would be a bit different, i.e. that the individual right to demand the rule be enforced was violated (23:3).

That is not necessarily what happened in this case. 

[Dan Honemann]

"....the Bylaws have a provision that a section can be suspended with a two-thirds vote."

[Atul Kapur]

16 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But what about the requirement [25:2(7)] that no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule?

Would this not mean that the rule requiring a majority of the entire membership could not be suspended by less than a majority of the entire membership, even if more than a 2/3 vote?

 

 

24 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

"....the Bylaws have a provision that a section can be suspended with a two-thirds vote."

If I understand the implication in Mr. Honemann's quote, then I agree that we are told that the bylaws contain a provision that supercedes 25:2(7).