Make or break a tie vote

[Guest Larry S]

Hello all,

First off, let me say that I have read FAQ #1, and yet I am still confused. This is from our constitution:

(c) The President shall only exercise their vote when it becomes necessary to make or break a tie vote of the Board or Association.

Article XIII. Parliamentary Authority

The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Association in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with this Constitution and Bylaws and any special rules of order the Association may adopt.

 

Another member of our board says that if it is made very specific in the body of the Constitution, then the President can only make or break a tie. Any yet, if we are following Robert's Rules, FAQ #1 kicks in. So the question is: does Robert's Rules trump the local Constitution or is it the other way around?

Thanks for clearing this up

Larry

[Richard Brown]

The provisions in your constitution prevail over those in your parliamentary authority. If your constitution says the president can vote only to make or break a tie, then those are the only occasions when he may vote, regardless of the provisions in RONR.

in this case, the rules  in RONR are inconsistent with the provisions in your bylaws. Therefore, your bylaw provisions prevail.

Edited August 15, 2022 at 02:05 AM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Weldon Merritt]

On 8/14/2022 at 7:40 PM, Guest Larry S said:

So the question is: does Robert's Rules trump the local Constitution or is it the other way around?

I concur with Mr. Brown, who beat me to the punch. If you want the rule in RONR to apply to the president's vote, you will need to amend the constitution to either mirror the RONR language or, even better, delete the provision from your constitution and allow the RONR rule to apply by default.

[Rob Elsman]

I concur with Messrs. Brown and Merritt, and I wish to particularly note how unfortunate is the item (c) from the constitution.  I suspect the authors of item (c) did not wish to deviate from the common parliamentary law, but they wrote what they did not actually mean.

[AFS1970]

Maybe I misunderstand the wording in the constitution, but why would there be a time when you would want to make a tie vote? I understand breaking a tie, but wouldn't making a tie just trigger the need to break a tie and thus give the president an undue amount of executive power?

Are these the situations this constitution envisions? 

Scenario #1: 11 members voting, vote is 6 to 5, the president then votes to MAKE the tie 6 to 6, then votes to break the tie but votes with the side that originally had 5.

Scenario #2: 10 members voting, the vote is 5 to 5, the president votes to BREAK the tie by voting with one side. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:32 AM, AFS1970 said:

Maybe I misunderstand the wording in the constitution, but why would there be a time when you would want to make a tie vote? I understand breaking a tie, but wouldn't making a tie just trigger the need to break a tie and thus give the president an undue amount of executive power?

 

I don't see anything in the text we were given permitting the president to vote twice. The president can create a tie (causing the motion to fail) or can "break" a tie, causing it to either fail (as it would have had he done nothing) or pass. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:32 AM, AFS1970 said:

why would there be a time when you would want to make a tie vote?

The principle in RONR is that the president votes when their vote would change the outcome. If the vote is 6-5, then the president could vote against to create a tie, 6-6. A tie vote is not a majority, so the motion is defeated on a tie vote. Therefore the outcome is changed from adopted 6-5 to defeated 6-6.

There is no need for the president to cast a second vote (which, as Mr. Katz notes, is not allowed in your contitution based on what you've shared).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/26/2022 at 11:32 AM, AFS1970 said:

Maybe I misunderstand the wording in the constitution, but why would there be a time when you would want to make a tie vote? I understand breaking a tie, but wouldn't making a tie just trigger the need to break a tie and thus give the president an undue amount of executive power?

Are these the situations this constitution envisions? 

Scenario #1: 11 members voting, vote is 6 to 5, the president then votes to MAKE the tie 6 to 6, then votes to break the tie but votes with the side that originally had 5.

Scenario #2: 10 members voting, the vote is 5 to 5, the president votes to BREAK the tie by voting with one side. 

No, you're getting all confused.

The president may vote a maximum of once.  Period.

Tie votes do not need to be "broken" at all.  A tie vote is less than a majority and so the motion fails, just as if everyone voted No.

So if the vote count is such that his one vote would matter, and the president has NOT yet voted.  Then the deciding vote is up to him. For a normal majority vote, this means a motion that is evenly tied, or passing by just one vote: 

• If the motion would pass without his vote, and he favors passage, he can do nothing and just let it pass.
• If the motion would pass without his vote, and he opposes passage, he can vote No, causing a tie.  The motion therefore fails.
• If the motion would fail without his vote, i.e. it is tied, and he favors passage, he can vote Yes and it would pass.
• If the motion would fail without his vote, i.e. it is tied, and he opposes passage, he can do nothing and let it fail.

Similar rules would apply for a two-thirds vote.  If one more vote would make the difference, the president can cast it.

But again, the president never gets two votes.

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/27/2022 at 4:21 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Similar rules would apply for a two-thirds vote.  If one more vote would make the difference, the president can cast it.

 

Not under these bylaws.

On 8/14/2022 at 9:40 PM, Guest Larry S said:

(c) The President shall only exercise their vote when it becomes necessary to make or break a tie vote of the Board or Association.

 

I am curious, though, if this means anything. It is never necessary to make or break a tie vote, so under these bylaws, may the president ever vote?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/27/2022 at 4:30 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I am curious, though, if this means anything. It is never necessary to make or break a tie vote, so under these bylaws, may the president ever vote?

It means something because the president is entitled to a preference, and although it's customary not to vote, in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality, when the president's vote would decide the outcome, it cannot be prevented.

[Rob Elsman]

Not only can he not be prevented, but, in those circumstances, he has an affirmative duty to vote if he can form a judgment on the question, just like any other member.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/27/2022 at 4:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Not only can he not be prevented, but, in those circumstances, he has an affirmative duty to vote if he can form a judgment on the question, just like any other member.

I don't disagree, but the question was worded as asking whether the president had (or presumably needed) permission to vote.

If a president is opposed to an action, and the motion fails on a tie vote, he can abstain without having evaded his affirmative duty.

Edited August 27, 2022 at 09:02 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

On 8/27/2022 at 4:49 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It means something because the president is entitled to a preference, and although it's customary not to vote, in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality, when the president's vote would decide the outcome, it cannot be prevented.

 

On 8/27/2022 at 4:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Not only can he not be prevented, but, in those circumstances, he has an affirmative duty to vote if he can form a judgment on the question, just like any other member.

The provision in question:

On 8/14/2022 at 9:40 PM, Guest Larry S said:

(c) The President shall only exercise their vote when it becomes necessary to make or break a tie vote of the Board or Association.

 

Does he not have the right, and the duty, to vote, only when it is necessary to make or break a tie? And it is never necessary to do either. I would more readily accept that I know what it means to say "necessary to ... break a tie vote," but I'm not so willing to concede I know what it means to be necessary to make a tie vote. 

[Rob Elsman]

Well, there is something to be said for the necessity of performing one's duty, I think; but, I frankly do not understand what, if anything, this clause is trying to convey.  I just don't get it.  Of course, I don't have to get it; it is not my rule.

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/27/2022 at 5:04 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Does he not have the right, and the duty, to vote, only when it is necessary to make or break a tie? And it is never necessary to do either.

I read it as the president is the person who decides whether it is necessary to change the outcome, by either making (Adopted becomes Lost) or breaking (Lost becomes Adopted) a tie.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/27/2022 at 4:40 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I read it as the president is the person who decides whether it is necessary to change the outcome, by either making (Adopted becomes Lost) or breaking (Lost becomes Adopted) a tie.

That is my understanding as well.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/27/2022 at 6:04 PM, Richard Brown said:

That is my understanding as well.

And mine.  If we strictly interpret necessary as a condition that can never occur, we must hold that this language was included in the bylaws for no reason, which we are not permitted to do.