Can President vote

[Jay M]

 In Our constitution it is laid down  as

Section 8: Manner of Acting: The act of majority of the trustees present at a meeting at which a quorum is present with a minimum of five (5) trustees voting for or against a decision shall be the act of the Board of Trustees except as otherwise stated elsewhere. The President of the Board of Trustees as the Presiding Officer, shall not exercise his/her vote in any motion put to a vote where a simple majority is required to affect the result EXCEPT

a)       When two-thirds majority is required to affect the result, and

b)      As the Presiding Officer (current President or the retiring President when applicable) at the time of Election of Officers during the meetings of the Board of Trustees when a tie breaker vote is required, even if he/she is not going to be a trustee on the new Board without the option of abstaining.

 

The current president whose term is ending by  the end of December 2022  is elected as trustee for another 4 years term which starts on Jan 1at 2023. The board of trustees for the year 2023 are  electing new office bearers . 

My questions is  whether the current president who is going to be member of 2023 board can vote in the election of office bearers for the year 2023  or can he vote only  if there is a tie?

Thanks In advance

[Josh Martin]

On 12/6/2022 at 3:57 PM, Jay M said:

My questions is  whether the current president who is going to be member of 2023 board can vote in the election of office bearers for the year 2023  or can he vote only  if there is a tie?

Apparently only in the case of a tie, based upon your organization's bylaws.

"b)      As the Presiding Officer (current President or the retiring President when applicable) at the time of Election of Officers during the meetings of the Board of Trustees when a tie breaker vote is required, even if he/she is not going to be a trustee on the new Board without the option of abstaining."

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree with Mr. Martin, although a small voice in my head keeps saying "...but a tiebreaker vote is technically never 'required.'"

Edited December 7, 2022 at 05:39 PM by Gary Novosielski
fix quotes

[Josh Martin]

On 12/7/2022 at 11:13 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree with Mr. Martin, although a small voice in my head keeps saying "...but a tiebreaker vote is technically never "required."

Yes, but the Principles of Interpretation tell us "When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning." RONR (12th ed.) 56:68

While the POI does not explicitly say so, I am inclined to think that this POI is also applicable in instances like these, where there are two possible interpretations of a bylaw provision, and one of them renders the provision itself absurd.

While it is technically true that a tiebreaker vote is not "required" for an election in the sense that the assembly can simply proceed to vote again, such an interpretation would render this rule meaningless. Therefore, I am inclined to think the interpretation instead should be interpreted to mean that the chair can vote in order to break a tie in an election.

While it is not germane to the present question, I would also suggest the board should take a closer look at these rules, for two reasons:

• I do not think it is a good idea to deprive the chair (especially the chair of a small board) of the right to vote (except in limited circumstances) and to deprive the chair of the right to privacy in a ballot vote.
• Even if the board wishes to continue using these rules, they should still be reviewed because they are rather poorly written and could use additional clarity.

[Jay M]

On 12/7/2022 at 10:59 AM, Josh Martin said:

Apparently only in the case of a tie, based upon your organization's bylaws.

"b)      As the Presiding Officer (current President or the retiring President when applicable) at the time of Election of Officers during the meetings of the Board of Trustees when a tie breaker vote is required, even if he/she is not going to be a trustee on the new Board without the option of abstaining."

Thanks Josh,

But being a member of new board he  got a vote to elect new officers right?

[Jay M]

On 12/7/2022 at 11:13 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree with Mr. Martin, although a small voice in my head keeps saying "...but a tiebreaker vote is technically never 'required.'"

Thanks Gary,

Please explain more ,  I did not understand the "tiebreaker vote is technically never required"  Thanks in advance

[Josh Martin]

On 12/7/2022 at 1:55 PM, Jay M said:

But being a member of new board he  got a vote to elect new officers right?

As I understand the rule in your bylaws, the President of the board in this organization has a right to vote only in certain, limited circumstances. In the context of an election, he has the right to vote, but only in the case of a tie. As I read the rule in question, it makes no difference whether the President will or will not be a member of the new board.

I will note that it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own rules.

On 12/7/2022 at 1:58 PM, Jay M said:

Please explain more ,  I did not understand the "tiebreaker vote is technically never required"  Thanks in advance

Let us suppose for a moment that your organization's rules on this matter did not exist, and RONR was controlling.

In such circumstances, it is never really correct to say that a tiebreaker vote is "required." In the ordinary case, a tie vote simply means the motion fails. In an election, a tie vote means that the assembly would hold another round of voting.

Edited December 7, 2022 at 08:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/7/2022 at 2:58 PM, Jay M said:

Thanks Gary,

Please explain more ,  I did not understand the "tiebreaker vote is technically never required"  Thanks in advance

Okay, but @Josh Martin has posted a response that addresses your particular situation, with which I agree completely.

As a general comment on "tie breaking" however, RONR does not recognize anything unique about a tie vote.  When a majority vote is required for something to be adopted, either a majority is obtained, or it is not.  A majority vote is defined as strictly more than half of the votes cast. 

Anything less than or equal to half of the votes cast is less than a majority, and rejects the question.  So whether a vote has 1/20 approval or 1/2 approval, the result is the same.  The question is rejected.  A tie is just one way that a motion can be rejected. 

So there is never anything that requires "breaking".  It's a binary choice, and counting the votes always tells you whether the question is, or is not, adopted.   

In the case of elections, the same logic applies.  If the rules in RONR apply, no one is elected on less than a majority vote.  Candidates that receive less than a majority are not elected.  The difference between an election and an ordinary motion is that while an organization may reject a motion to paint the clubhouse, it cannot decide not to elect officers, so second and subsequent ballots are sometimes required.

[Jay M]

Thanks Gary,

 I  am not referring to our bylaw.  I understood If there is a tie while electing the officers the other option is to put it again for voting. How many times shall we try for getting majority for the the motion to elect the new Officers?  

Thanks

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/9/2022 at 11:09 AM, Jay M said:

How many times shall we try for getting majority for the the motion to elect the new Officers?

RONR says until one candidate receives the majority of the votes, however many rounds of voting that takes.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/9/2022 at 11:09 AM, Jay M said:

Thanks Gary,

 I  am not referring to our bylaw.  I understood If there is a tie while electing the officers the other option is to put it again for voting. How many times shall we try for getting majority for the the motion to elect the new Officers?  

Thanks

You continue to hold additional rounds of ballots until all offices are filled. 

It may take a few times.  But hopefully you will not take as many as the 1924 Democratic National Convention, which took 103 ballots before nominating a candidate.  

[Atul Kapur]

All in the same year? Pshaw.

The election that resulted in Pope Gregory X lasted 2 years, 9 months, from November 1268 – 1 September 1271. The villagers locked the cardinals in, reduced rations to bread and water, and removed the roof to "encourage" a decision.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/9/2022 at 1:32 PM, Atul Kapur said:

All in the same year? Pshaw.

The election that resulted in Pope Gregory X lasted 2 years, 9 months, from November 1268 – 1 September 1271. The villagers locked the cardinals in, reduced rations to bread and water, and removed the roof to "encourage" a decision.

Those are suggestions that @Jay M might consider in his organization.  

Villagers;  can't live with 'em--can't shoot 'em.

[Jay M]

Thanks to everyone  for a valuable information