Does a board chair/president need to officially recognize a call for a vote when another director calls for a vote and asks for a second

[Guest AlexL]

Under the current Roberts Rules of Order, does a board chair/president need to officially recognize a call for a vote when another director calls for a vote and receives a second?

Context: During a recent board meeting, I as a member of the board, had the floor and was giving a presentation on a topic for community improvements. At the end of my presentation, I requested that the board move to vote on approving my proposal and received a second. After I requested to see if there was any need for additional discussion or if there were any questions, the president/chair decided to unilaterally table the decision/vote until the end of the meeting. After back and forth on whether this was allowed, and after input from our property manager and her senior property manager saying that the president couldn't do this, she raised the idea that "because the president, who presides over the meetings as the chair, did not officially recognize the call for a vote at that time, she as president was allowed to unilaterally dictate the flow of the conversation and move the vote to the end of the meeting after all other topics had been discussed." Both property managers and myself are under the impression that the president was out of line, as I had the floor and was therefore allowed to be the one to officially call for a vote as dictated under Roberts Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure. 

My question to the community: who is in the right? Was I correct in being able to call for a vote as I had the floor, or is my president correct that because she didn't officially recognize the call for a vote and was therefore within her authority to push the vote to the end of the meeting?

As an aside: the motion passed and was adopted, this is merely a topic for academic discussion.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/29/2024 at 12:43 PM, Guest AlexL said:

Under the current Roberts Rules of Order, does a board chair/president need to officially recognize a call for a vote when another director calls for a vote and receives a second?

Context: During a recent board meeting, I as a member of the board, had the floor and was giving a presentation on a topic for community improvements. At the end of my presentation, I requested that the board move to vote on approving my proposal and received a second.

This is the first mistake.  You should have put your proposal in the form of a motion and not request that the board move to vote on approving your proposal.  But assuming that you did make a proper motion (you are now just describing it incorrectly), then

 

On 6/29/2024 at 12:43 PM, Guest AlexL said:

After I requested to see if there was any need for additional discussion or if there were any questions,

this is the second mistake.  It was not in order for you to do any of this.  This is what the chair does (or should do).  Instead

On 6/29/2024 at 12:43 PM, Guest AlexL said:

the president/chair decided to unilaterally table the decision/vote until the end of the meeting.

which, of course, the chair had no right to do, which led to

 

On 6/29/2024 at 12:43 PM, Guest AlexL said:

After back and forth on whether this was allowed, and after input from our property manager and her senior property manager saying that the president couldn't do this, she raised the idea that "because the president, who presides over the meetings as the chair, did not officially recognize the call for a vote at that time, she as president was allowed to unilaterally dictate the flow of the conversation and move the vote to the end of the meeting after all other topics had been discussed."

evidencing a state of complete and total ignorance, disorder and nonsense.

 

On 6/29/2024 at 12:43 PM, Guest AlexL said:

Both property managers and myself are under the impression that the president was out of line, as I had the floor and was therefore allowed to be the one to officially call for a vote as dictated under Roberts Rules of Order and Parliamentary Procedure. 

Yes, the President was out of line, but so were you and the property managers. You no longer had the floor after you made your motion, and certainly had no right to "officially call for a vote".

On 6/29/2024 at 12:43 PM, Guest AlexL said:

My question to the community: who is in the right? Was I correct in being able to call for a vote as I had the floor, or is my president correct that because she didn't officially recognize the call for a vote and was therefore within her authority to push the vote to the end of the meeting?

Neither of you was "in the right".  It was all a total mess.

[Atul Kapur]

While everything Mr. Honemann says is correct, I did want to point out the principle that the chair of  a meeting must not ignore a motion that has been properly made and seconded. RONR (12th ed.) 4:16 says "In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear."

I also want to ensure that it is clear that your "call for a vote" -- which should properly have been the motion Previous Question (to end debate and vote immediately) -- does not, by itself, lead to a vote on your proposal. Once the motion Previous Question has been made and seconded, it requires a ⅔ vote to actually end the debate and conduct the vote on the underlying motion. Unanimous consent also meets that threshold.

Edited June 29, 2024 at 06:03 PM by Atul Kapur

[Guest AlexL]

Thank you both for your expertise on this matter, I really appreciate the insight! As I was typing this out, I was already thinking that both of us were in the wrong but I needed that to be clarified. I also accept that I was out of order first on this matter. 

As a follow up question regarding the following:

RONR (12th ed.) 4:16 says "In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear."

Outside of being obliged to rule that the motion is not in order, is it up to the chair's discretion to also unilaterally decide to table the vote until the end of the meeting or does this decision to table also need to be seconded?

 

[Atul Kapur]

The correct term is postpone, rather than table. Either way, the chair cannot do so unilaterally, at least not in the face of any objection. The chair can assume a routine or non-controversial motion and, if no one objects, take the action. His is often done to help expedite matters. But the chair must allow the opportunity for an objection and, if any person objects, the chair must process the motion as any other.

[Guest AlexL]

Thank you very much for the insight and clarification, I really appreciate it. 

Last question, completely unrelated to the topic: I am unable to sign up to be a member for this forum as it states I am "failing to pass a security check". Is there a verification email that is supposed to be sent or something else?

[Atul Kapur]

At the bottom of this page there is a link to "Contact a Site Administrator." Try that.

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/29/2024 at 9:43 AM, Guest AlexL said:

dictate

Well, at least we know what the chair aspires to do.

[Drake Savory]

On 6/29/2024 at 10:43 AM, Guest AlexL said:

At the end of my presentation, I requested that the board move to vote on approving my proposal and received a second. After I requested to see if there was any need for additional discussion or if there were any questions,

I would say you got these two steps backwards since once you made the motion, the motion belongs to the board and not you and the Chair is the one to preside over the business related to the motion.

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/29/2024 at 3:14 PM, Guest AlexL said:

RONR (12th ed.) 4:16 says "In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear."

That's true.  So as soon as you moved to adopt the recommendation (and before you asked for a second) the chair should have taken over the task of presiding, including checking for a second, and stating the motion.  At that point, as the mover, you would have been entitled to first priority of recognition to begin debate on the motion.  You could yield for questions if there are any.  But the chair remains in charge of who gets recognized in debate

You could also move (if you have the floor) for the Previous Question, i.e., call for a vote, but that would require a second and a two-thirds vote to end debate.

It is not up to the chair to unilaterally Postpone the pending motion nor to Lay it on the Table.  That requires approval of the assembly (i.e., the board).  But if he attempts to do so, a Point of Order would need to be raised at that time.  Snoozing results in losing.

[Drake Savory]

On 6/30/2024 at 9:34 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

It is not up to the chair to unilaterally Postpone the pending motion nor to Lay it on the Table.

Given the nature of the proper use of Lay on the Table, if an emergency occurs like a fire in the back of the hall then I would say it is on the Chair to announce, "By unanimous consent the motion is laid on the table and everyone get out of here."

[Gary Novosielski]

If an emergency occurs, the assembly would be better served by declaring the meeting in recess without wasting time laying things on the table.