Co-Chair Vote

[Tomm]

Our standing committee's are chaired, and co-chaired by Board Members. Typically, both the Chair and Co-Chair would not vote during the meetings. 

Question, Should the Co-Chair be voting? Any text in RONR about this other than what's said about the Chair voting?

[Richard Brown]

7 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Question, Should the Co-Chair be voting? Any text in RONR about this other than what's said about the Chair voting?

If you have co-chairs, your organization will have to decide this issue for itself. The only thing RONR says about co-chairs is that they should be avoided. Here is the text of section 13:17:  ”The anomalous title “co-chairman” should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position”.

[Tomm]

The Bylaws state "All committees shall have a Board of Director as Chair and Co-Chair who shall be approved by the Board in January each year." 

The Bylaw doesn't specify the difference between Chair and Co-Chair. (I'm assuming the correct title should be Vice-Chair so that the Vice Chair only gets to run the meeting in the absence of the Chair?) 

So are you kinda saying that according to RONR the positions of serving as Chair and Co-Chair are viewed as being equal and interchangeable? Meaning that either the Chair or Co-Chair can each facilitate the meeting at any given time and that's why RONR calls it an anomaly?  

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Tomm said:

Our standing committee's are chaired, and co-chaired by Board Members. Typically, both the Chair and Co-Chair would not vote during the meetings. 

Question, Should the Co-Chair be voting? Any text in RONR about this other than what's said about the Chair voting?

I don't know why they are abstaining, let alone why both are.

RONR (12th ed.) 50:25 says that the rules for small boards in 49:21 "are applicable during the meetings of all standing and special committees, unless the committee is otherwise instructed by the society"

49:21(7) states that if the chair is a member, they may vote on all questions.

If the "committee is so large that it can function best in the manner of a full-scale assembly, it should be instructed that the informalities and modifications of the regular rules of parliamentary procedure listed for small boards in 49:21 are not to apply to its proceedings. The parent assembly may adopt such instructions to the committee by majority vote." 50:26

[Guest Puzzling]

Under small board rules the chair can always vote.

For large meetings the chair should vote if his vote makes a difference or if it is a secret vote, this all to uphold a vire of impartiality.

With two chairs this can be very cumbersome especially if they not even know if they vote on the same side, but even so the impartiality could be upheld if the difference between the sides is to large to be overcome by two votes extra at the lesser side

 

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Under small board rules the chair can always vote.

For large meetings the chair should vote if his vote makes a difference or if it is a secret vote, this all to uphold a vire of impartiality.

With two chairs this can be very cumbersome especially if they not even know if they vote on the same side, but even so the impartiality could be upheld if the difference between the sides is to large to be overcome by two votes extra at the lesser side

 

This is a standing committee though.

[Richard Brown]

5 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I don't know why they are abstaining, let alone why both are.

Dr. Kapur is correct. Even though RONR says that co-chairs should be avoided, in an ordinary committee using the small board rules the chairs (and co-chairs) of committees may normally vote along with everyone else. In my original answer late last night I had overlooked or forgotten the fact that these are committees. Both of the co-chairs may vote unless one of the exceptions that Dr. Kapur mentioned is applicable.

[Richard Brown]

8 hours ago, Tomm said:

So are you kinda saying that according to RONR the positions of serving as Chair and Co-Chair are viewed as being equal and interchangeable? Meaning that either the Chair or Co-Chair can each facilitate the meeting at any given time and that's why RONR calls it an anomaly?  

I’m saying that is a up to your organization to figure out what the roles of the cochairs are.

One of our former members who has gone on to an afterlife wrote an excellent article about why cochairs should be avoided. I will try to find it and come back and post a link (unless someone else beat me to it). 

[Richard Brown]

@Tomm here is a link to the article in the National Parliamentarian magazine by Dr. John Stackpole about the problems with co-anything’s.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbcnnjcq5l9eaux/Problems With co-any...

[Tomm]

Thanks, very enlightening!

But just to be clear, if the organization or Bylaws are silent on which roles the Chair and Co-Chair are to play, then do they each have equal authority?

Our committee co-chair sent out an email to the entire committee and was reprimanded by the Chair because the Chair said the communications was not cleared thru the Chair. 

Seems to me, if you confirm that the Co-Chair has equal authority as the Chair, then an apology is in order? 

[Dan Honemann]

13 minutes ago, Tomm said:

But just to be clear, if the organization or Bylaws are silent on which roles the Chair and Co-Chair are to play, then do they each have equal authority?

You won't find an answer in RONR. Google it.

[Richard Brown]

25 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You won't find an answer in RONR. Google it.

“Google it”  Is this a first for Mr. H??? 😅

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

“Google it”  Is this a first for Mr. H??? 😅

According to the handy dandy search function here, yes, but I'm still in doubt that he's ever used it personally.   

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

But just to be clear, if the organization or Bylaws are silent on which roles the Chair and Co-Chair are to play, then do they each have equal authority?

. . .

Seems to me, if you confirm that the Co-Chair has equal authority as the Chair, 

As you have heard, you won't find an answer in RONR.

However, it seems to me that since the titles are different (Chair and Co-Chair) it is not intuitive to assume that they have equal authority. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be vice chair?

None of this has anything to do with whether sending an email is appropriate or not or whether an apology is called for or not.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

Thanks, very enlightening!

But just to be clear, if the organization or Bylaws are silent on which roles the Chair and Co-Chair are to play, then do they each have equal authority?

Our committee co-chair sent out an email to the entire committee and was reprimanded by the Chair because the Chair said the communications was not cleared thru the Chair. 

Seems to me, if you confirm that the Co-Chair has equal authority as the Chair, then an apology is in order? 

Except for "(confidential) executive session business" I think any member could send communications to other members as they see fit.  And discuss the topics as they see fit as long as they don't take decisions for the assembly.

I agree that nobody can be forced to cooperate with members who wish to do so, but members who do may do so.

It may be nice and beneficial to do it in an orderly manner but that is another question.

Also possibly even the organization is bound by sunshine laws ( laws on the openness of meetings mostly for public bodies) there can be questions.

The organisation seems to be in need of some special rules of order for the rules and authority of the co-chair but in this case even that is beside the point.

 

[Tomm]

3 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

However, it seems to me that since the titles are different (Chair and Co-Chair) it is not intuitive to assume that they have equal authority. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be vice chair?

But if each didn't have equal authority then why does RONR warn that the chair and co-chair "causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the function of a single position." 

Granted, one (the Chair) probably has the first priority to facilitate the meeting but if the position of chair and co-chair weren't specifically delineated as in co-chair vs vice-chair, it seems to me that their authorities co-exist and are pretty much equal to one another or else why would RONR warn of the problem of sharing a single position?  

[Weldon Merritt]

2 minutes ago, Tomm said:

But if each didn't have equal authority then why does RONR warn that the chair and co-chair "causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the function of a single position." 

There may be a subtle difference between a provision that creates co-chairs (plural) and one that creates a chair and a co-chair (two singular nouns). The former clearly seems to make the two positions co-equal, but the latter could be seem as more equivalent to a chair and a vice chair. Consider, as an analogy, a pilot and co-pilot. I think most people would understand the pilot to be in charge and the co-pilot to be there to assist.

[Atul Kapur]

Thank you, Weldon; I agree totally with your response. I will push things a little further and say that the warning in RONR (12th ed.) 13:17 that @Tomm quotes applies to the situation of two equal co-chairs or other situations where there is not a clear hierarchy or division of duties. Or, as we see here, when the use of the term co-chair causes confusion as to what, exactly, it means.

Quote

If the committee’s task is heavy and will require some time to complete, it often is advisable to appoint a vice-chairman. The anomalous title “co-chairman” should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position.

 

[Tomm]

46 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Consider, as an analogy, a pilot and co-pilot. I think most people would understand the pilot to be in charge and the co-pilot to be there to assist.

That makes more sense that it's a matter of having multiple co-chairs at the same time. A single Vice-Chair makes it so much clearer!

Thanks 

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

A single Vice-Chair makes it so much clearer!

I agree. And if that's what is intended, that's what the bylaws should say. Using the term "co-chair" can create confusion, as this thread illustrates.