two votes by board chair

[Al Dunbar]

our current bylaws allow the chair of a board meeting to have a second vote in the event of a tie vote. Does this conflict with Robert's Rules in any way or create any kind of a practical problem?

[Josh Martin]

On 9/18/2024 at 1:33 PM, Al Dunbar said:

our current bylaws allow the chair of a board meeting to have a second vote in the event of a tie vote. Does this conflict with Robert's Rules in any way or create any kind of a practical problem?

It certainly conflicts with Robert's Rules. I am personally inclined to think it will cause all kinds of practical problems.

I am also not certain what problem this is intended to solve, since a tie vote simply means that the motion is defeated, just as in any other case where the motion does not receive a majority. Contrary to popular belief, a tie vote does not leave a motion in some sort of limbo. There is not really any need to break a tie.

Nonetheless, the organization is free to adopt rules in its bylaws which conflict with Robert's Rules. The bylaws supersede Robert's Rules.

Edited September 18, 2024 at 06:49 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/18/2024 at 2:33 PM, Al Dunbar said:

our current bylaws allow the chair of a board meeting to have a second vote in the event of a tie vote. Does this conflict with Robert's Rules in any way or create any kind of a practical problem?

I agree with @Josh Martin that this conflicts with RONR - and that your bylaws supersede RONR when there is a conflict.

I note that this is a common provision in many bylaws, particularly corporate ones. Effectively, for motions, it means that the chair can break a tie vote (which defeats the motion) by voting Yes and changing the result to an adoption of the motion (if the chair votes No, it doesn't change the result, as a tie vote defeats a motion just as much as a motion defeated by one vote). 

The one place where the chair's second vote (sometimes called a "casting vote")  becomes important is in elections where a tie vote requires a repeated round of voting.

[Al Dunbar]

Thanks to Atul and Josh for their helpful comments. I'm not sure if I will change any minds on the board but will try.

I am a bit surprised that neither of you included this quote from RONR: “the chair cannot vote twice, once as a member, and then again in his capacity as presiding officer”.

I can think of three issues:

• all present vote, including the chair, and it comes to a tie. Since a tie defeats the motion, it can reasonably be concluded that defeating the motion was the proper collective intent of those present. If the chair were to cast his second vote in favor to break the tie, that would seem to go against the collective intent of those present. Everyone would need to accept and support the new result, however, I think this might cause ill will.
•  
• same scenario, but pressure could be brought to bear on the chair from both sides. We should be voting what we believe to be the best for the organization, not in reaction to the comments of others.
•  
• almost any reasonable tie breaking method seems biased towards passing a motion. And the unreasonable methods (coin flip, wrestling match, etc) could certainly break a tie, but not deliberatively.

I am going to recommend that we leave the current tie breaking bylaw out of the current draft bylaws being considered. If there is an insistence on the board that ties must be broken for some reason, I will suggest one not involving two votes: The one in which the chair withholds voting so he will be able to break a tie by voting in favour (if that is his preference). There should be fewer complaints as that would likely have been how he would have voted if he hadn't waited for the tie.

I will then show that, whatever the result following a tie in terms of how everyone ultimately voted, it would  most likely be no different if the chair had voted directly with the rest of the members. So, no tie (maybe), but no real change of voting patterns or result, either.

Edited September 21, 2024 at 05:10 AM by Al Dunbar

[Al Dunbar]

On 9/18/2024 at 2:24 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The one place where the chair's second vote (sometimes called a "casting vote")  becomes important is in elections where a tie vote requires a repeated round of voting.

I'm not sure how such an election would work, but settling a tie between two candidates based on the opinion of one of the voters (or any other method) seems a bit anti-democratic to me.

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:08 AM, Al Dunbar said:

I am a bit surprised that neither of you included this quote from RONR

I didn't quote it because it's irrelevant in your current situation. We both acknowledged that your bylaws are in conflict with RONR, but the important thing is that your bylaws are the higher authority, so they supersede whatever RONR says.

You did not previously say that you are revising your bylaws. I agree that it would be best to drop this provision.

On 9/21/2024 at 1:15 AM, Al Dunbar said:

I'm not sure how such an election would work

The chair would say, after reading the tellers report, "Candidates A and B are tied. As per bylaws Article x, the chair has a second vote in  the event of a tie and casts that second vote for Candidate B. Candidate B is elected."

On 9/21/2024 at 1:15 AM, Al Dunbar said:

seems a bit anti-democratic to me.

I'm not saying that I like or would recommend your current rules, I was (as immediately above) simply trying to explain how they might work.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:08 AM, Al Dunbar said:

I am a bit surprised that neither of you included this quote from RONR: “the chair cannot vote twice, once as a member, and then again in his capacity as presiding officer”.

I'm sure all of us here are familiar with that rule, but since your bylaws supersede any conflicting rules in RONR, that rule has no application to your situation.

[Richard Brown]

@Al Dunbar as explained by my colleagues, your bylaws trump any contrary provisions in RONR. There is no reason for us to quote a provision in RONR which is rendered irrelevant by your bylaws.

[Guest Al Dunbar]

On 9/21/2024 at 7:43 PM, Richard Brown said:

@Al Dunbar as explained by my colleagues, your bylaws trump any contrary provisions in RONR. There is no reason for us to quote a provision in RONR which is rendered irrelevant by your bylaws.

Thanks. I was not complaining about none of you quoting that provision, just stating I was surprised that none of you did, saying only that our bylaw conflicted with RONR. I'm glad I found it on my own, because my telling our board it conflicts is easier to justify if I can show where RONR explicitly states this.

I realize that bylaws trump RONR, but just because we can is not a good idea to do it unless it is warranted. Having a tie breaking bylaw that doesn't actually do anything positive is not a good idea, andvmade worse by introducing some negative effects.

Anyway, I'd like to end this on a positive note and say your sharing your insights, which have been most helpful.

On 9/21/2024 at 11:17 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm sure all of us here are familiar with that rule, but since your bylaws supersede any conflicting rules in RONR, that rule has no application to your situation.

Actually, I was not familiar with that rule, although I kind of inferred it from other principles.

Although it has no application regarding our current bylaws, we are now in the process of amending them. I appreciate that our bylaws can override RONR. However, I think that needs to be done carefully. RONR has been evolving over a long time, and I suspect there is little in it that isn't backed by solid reasons. See my later comment here for a few reasons I have deduced 

[Richard Brown]

On 9/21/2024 at 11:41 PM, Guest Al Dunbar said:

I realize that bylaws trump RONR, but just because we can is not a good idea to do it unless it is warranted. Having a tie breaking bylaw that doesn't actually do anything positive is not a good idea, andvmade worse by introducing some negative effects.

I think that just about all of us on this forum will tell you that we think it is a bad idea to give the presiding officer or any other member two votes. As explained in RONR, there is no need to break a tie as a motion fails on a tie vote. RONR gives the chair the right to vote when he so desires if his vote will affect the outcome. There is really no need for the rule that you have in your bylaws.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I didn't have book tickets check but thought the "one person, one vote" was inviolable?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/22/2024 at 8:42 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I didn't have book tickets check but thought the "one person, one vote" was inviolable?

Not if it's in the bylaws.  

And it's typically violated by every stock corporation and homeowners association.

[Rob Elsman]

I do not think of commercial share corporations or property-owner associations as being in the nature of ordinary societies for which the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are most suited. These examples of common exceptions to the "one man, one vote" fundamental principle of parliamentary law do not seem to me to be particularly relevant.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:42 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And it's typically violated by every stock corporation and homeowners association.

Do you really think that stock corporations and homeowners associations typically give two votes to their presiding officers?  I don't recall it being the case in those instances with which I have been familiar.

[Joshua Katz]

On 9/22/2024 at 9:50 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Do you really think that stock corporations and homeowners associations typically give two votes to their presiding officers?  I don't recall it being the case in those instances with which I have been familiar.

No, but all stock corporations and HOAs I know of violate the "one person, one vote" rule.

[Rob Elsman]

I would not characterize these kinds of apportionment schemes as being violations of anything whatsoever.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/22/2024 at 12:52 PM, Joshua Katz said:

No, but all stock corporations and HOAs I know of violate the "one person, one vote" rule.

But this is not what we were talking about, and besides, I wasn't asking you.