Under a Guiding Document for a non-profit Executive Committee, what role do you assign a tie-breaker?

[Guest BCCSP]

In a non-profit organization with an Executive Committee with an even number of people, what title can we use for a former Executive Chair who is willing to serve as a tie breaker if needed?  Would either Chair Emeritus or Ex Officio be appropriate?

[Atul Kapur]

Why do you need a tie-breaker?

Under RONR, a majority vote is required to adopt a motion. A majority is more than half. A tie is not a majority so the motion would not be adopted on a tie vote (i.e., a motion fails on a tie).

To answer your question, you can name the unnecessary position whatever title you wish. However, the term "ex officio" has another definition and you should avoid the confusion caused by giving the unnecessary position this name.

[Weldon Merritt]

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I will just add that your inclusion of the qualifier, "with an even number of people," reveals a common misconception that a tie can occur only if there is an even number of members. With an odd number of members, absences or abstentions also could result in an even number actually voting, which could result in a tie. But as Dr. Kapur stated, there is no need to break the tie; the motion simply fails. (But it cam be made again at the next, or any subsequent, meeting in hopes of a different outcome.)

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest BCCSP said:

In a non-profit organization with an Executive Committee with an even number of people, what title can we use for a former Executive Chair who is willing to serve as a tie breaker if needed?  Would either Chair Emeritus or Ex Officio be appropriate?

It should first be noted that it will be necessary to amend the bylaws to create this position.

I really have no idea what to call this position as I've never heard of an organization using a former Executive Chair for the sole purpose of serving as a tie breaker if needed. Of the options provided, the title "Chair Emeritus" seems somewhat more apt.

[Guest BCCSP]

Thank you for the responses.  The confusion for me comes in as our Coalition has an Executive Committee who alone makes decisions on funds requests from our members.  Our Executive Committee has an even number of positions (8), so there is a possibility there may at some point be a vote of 4 in favor and 4 in opposition.  

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Guest BCCSP said:

Our Executive Committee has an even number of positions (8), so there is a possibility there may at some point be a vote of 4 in favor and 4 in opposition.  

So what? As we have told you, a tie vote defeats the motion. It's not a "deadlock." Just record the motion as lost and move on.

[J. J.]

9 hours ago, Guest BCCSP said:

Thank you for the responses.  The confusion for me comes in as our Coalition has an Executive Committee who alone makes decisions on funds requests from our members.  Our Executive Committee has an even number of positions (8), so there is a possibility there may at some point be a vote of 4 in favor and 4 in opposition.  

As indicated, a hypothetical 4 to 4 vote means that the motion is lost.  Further, there is no guarantee that there will be an absence or a member abstaining.  

[Richard Brown]

11 hours ago, Guest BCCSP said:

Our Executive Committee has an even number of positions (8), so there is a possibility there may at some point be a vote of 4 in favor and 4 in opposition. 

The other responses have adequately addressed the fact that when voting on motions there is no need to break a tie because a motion fails on a tie vote. That should be a very simple concept to understand.

The only time when breaking a tie might become an issue would be in an election, such as making an appointment. RONR provides that in such a case, you simply keep voting until someone finally wins. However,  there are ways in which such tie votes can be resolved  both with and without adopting special rules or amending the city charter.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/30/2020 at 5:23 PM, Guest BCCSP said:

In a non-profit organization with an Executive Committee with an even number of people, what title can we use for a former Executive Chair who is willing to serve as a tie breaker if needed?  Would either Chair Emeritus or Ex Officio be appropriate?

Tie breakers are never needed.  A tie is less than a majority, so the motion is simply defeated, just as any other motion that gets less than a majority.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Tie breakers are never needed.  A tie is less than a majority, so the motion is simply defeated, just as any other motion that gets less than a majority.

Never needed? When it comes to motions, I agree. However, when it comes to elections, the organization IS going to have to break a tie if it is going to complete the election and actually elect someone.

Edited January 3, 2021 at 10:15 PM by Richard Brown

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Never needed? When it comes to motions, I agree. However, when it comes to elections, the organization IS going to have to break a tie if it is going to complete the election and actually elect someone.

Yes, they will eventually need to achieve a complete election but here we are using  the term "tie breaker" to mean a person whose assigned duty is to vote to break "deadlocks".  Such persons are never needed.

[Richard Brown]

42 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Such persons are never needed.

Perhaps not, but the organization is nonetheless free to provide for such a person in its bylaws if it so desires. I think the question asked by the OP is whether this organization may do so and, if so, what title should be given to such a person.

I think all of us who post regularly on this forum will agree that having such a person or position is not a good idea. 

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, they are free to do all sorts of things that they don't need to do.