President Election and Tie Vote

[Guest AJ]

We have a 12 member board and the by-laws are silent on addressing the method of voting for officers with the exception of defining the offices and that a majority vote is required. An anticipated vote suggests that we will have a tie vote on the candidates running for President (this includes the President). I understand that the motion fails and I believe the Chair would then essentially declare who is the new President. 1) Is this correct? and 2) if so and because RObert's RUles states that a Chair cannot voice twice, does this mean that someone could request a new motion and the Chair would have to abstain from that vote?

I hope this is clear.

[David A Foulkes]

We have a 12 member board and the by-laws are silent on addressing the method of voting for officers with the exception of defining the offices and that a majority vote is required. An anticipated vote suggests that we will have a tie vote on the candidates running for President (this includes the President). I understand that the motion fails and I believe the Chair would then essentially declare who is the new President. 1) Is this correct? and 2) if so and because RObert's RUles states that a Chair cannot voice twice, does this mean that someone could request a new motion and the Chair would have to abstain from that vote?

I hope this is clear.

In an election, you vote (and re-vote, and re-re-vote) until a candidate receives a majority of votes cast. An election is a bit different than all those regular motions where a tie vote defeats the motion. So, if no one gets a majority of votes in the first round, you vote again and again until someone does. Maybe one of the candidates will withdraw, or a member will leave, or a write-in candidate might win, or someone might change their vote. You just never know.

Everyone gets to vote again, one vote per member, and no names get automatically dropped off the list of candidates. Barring any rule to the contrary (like your bylaws) the Chair does not declare a winner in a tie vote. And the chair does not have to abstain, assuming you're using (secret) ballots for voting.

[Guest AJ]

In an election, you vote (and re-vote, and re-re-vote) until a candidate receives a majority of votes cast. An election is a bit different than all those regular motions where a tie vote defeats the motion. So, if no one gets a majority of votes in the first round, you vote again and again until someone does. Maybe one of the candidates will withdraw, or a member will leave, or a write-in candidate might win, or someone might change their vote. You just never know.

Everyone gets to vote again, one vote per member, and no names get automatically dropped off the list of candidates. Barring any rule to the contrary (like your bylaws) the Chair does not declare a winner in a tie vote. And the chair does not have to abstain, assuming you're using (secret) ballots for voting.

Thank David for the input. I anticipate this will be one of those situations where "lines are drawn in the sand" and no one will drop out. What happens if the tie can't be broken?

[David A Foulkes]

Thank David for the input. I anticipate this will be one of those situations where "lines are drawn in the sand" and no one will drop out. What happens if the tie can't be broken?

Well, it really has to be. If you are required by your bylaws to hold elections (typically at the annual general membership meeting) then you have to at least start the process. But, once the election is pending - that is, it is underway, if it appears that you are faced with tie vote after tie vote, one option would be to postpone the remainder of the process to an adjourned meeting. The motion to Fix The Time to Adjourn To sets up a continuation of the AGM to a later day/time, no later then the next regularly scheduled meeting, though. During the election it would be a privileged motion, requires a second, is not debatable but is amendable as to the date/time/location, and requires a majority vote. You would not be able to move this during a round of voting, but once the chair declares the results (no doubt another tie), I believe it would be in order for a member could obtain the floor and move it.

The best advantage here would probably be that you might have someone who can't make it to the meeting, not that you would try to schedule it that way and possibly violate their rights. But maybe something comes up between now and then, and a member just isn't able to attend. Now you might not have a tie with 11 members, although that's no guarantee as one member might abstain, and you're looking at a 5-5 tie.

Now, you mention a 12 member board here. Is the board the group that elects its own officers, and not the general membership?

[Guest AJ]

Well, it really has to be. If you are required by your bylaws to hold elections (typically at the annual general membership meeting) then you have to at least start the process. But, once the election is pending - that is, it is underway, if it appears that you are faced with tie vote after tie vote, one option would be to postpone the remainder of the process to an adjourned meeting. The motion to Fix The Time to Adjourn To sets up a continuation of the AGM to a later day/time, no later then the next regularly scheduled meeting, though. During the election it would be a privileged motion, requires a second, is not debatable but is amendable as to the date/time/location, and requires a majority vote. You would not be able to move this during a round of voting, but once the chair declares the results (no doubt another tie), I believe it would be in order for a member could obtain the floor and move it.

The best advantage here would probably be that you might have someone who can't make it to the meeting, not that you would try to schedule it that way and possibly violate their rights. But maybe something comes up between now and then, and a member just isn't able to attend. Now you might not have a tie with 11 members, although that's no guarantee as one member might abstain, and you're looking at a 5-5 tie.

Now, you mention a 12 member board here. Is the board the group that elects its own officers, and not the general membership?

Thanks David, yes the board elects its own officers. Also and if the scenario you suggest (continuation of meetings to vote, etc.) play out...I assume nothing precludes us from electing the other officers as required by the by-laws, who are elected by the Board. If so, then I presume the elected Vice-President would continue to preside until such time the President's slot is resolved. Am I correct?

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks David, yes the board elects its own officers. Also and if the scenario you suggest (continuation of meetings to vote, etc.) play out...I assume nothing precludes us from electing the other officers as required by the by-laws, who are elected by the Board. If so, then I presume the elected Vice-President would continue to preside until such time the President's slot is resolved. Am I correct?

That depends on how terms of office are defined in your bylaws, and I hope they are. The wording may actually allow (or perhaps the better word would be require) the "current" President to remain in office until the new one is elected.

The typical variations on the language for this would be that the terms of office for officers are

1. "one year or until their successors are elected."
2. "one year", or even
3. "one year and until their successors are elected."

For 1 and 3, this means the officer stays in office until the election for that office is complete. For 2, it means that after a year has passed since the last election, they are no longer in office, and you may not have a President.

What do your bylaws say?

[Guest AJ]

That depends on how terms of office are defined in your bylaws, and I hope they are. The wording may actually allow (or perhaps the better word would be require) the "current" President to remain in office until the new one is elected.

The typical variations on the language for this would be that the terms of office for officers are

1. "one year or until their successors are elected."
2. "one year", or even
3. "one year and until their successors are elected."

For 1 and 3, this means the officer stays in office until the election for that office is complete. For 2, it means that after a year has passed since the last election, they are no longer in office, and you may not have a President.

What do your bylaws say?

You're right, the by-laws do provide for the sitting President to remain in office until a new President is elected. The current President is termed out and we have an annual meeting prior to the Board meeting during which officers are elected. Who should preside at this meeting, since technically no officers will have been elected?

[Josh Martin]

You're right, the by-laws do provide for the sitting President to remain in office until a new President is elected. The current President is termed out and we have an annual meeting prior to the Board meeting during which officers are elected.

The fact that the President has served the maximum number of terms under your Bylaws would not prevent him from remaining in office until a new President is elected, in case there is any uncertainty on this point.

Who should preside at this meeting, since technically no officers will have been elected?

Unless your Bylaws provide otherwise, the President remains in office until his successor is elected. So the President will preside.

[Guest AJ]

The fact that the President has served the maximum number of terms under your Bylaws would not prevent him from remaining in office until a new President is elected, in case there is any uncertainty on this point.

Unless your Bylaws provide otherwise, the President remains in office until his successor is elected. So the President will preside.

Thank you Josh, this makes the course of action explicit.

[Guest AJ]

Below is an excerpt from our by-laws and it seems I missed an important point (see bold and underline)

The officers shall be elected for a term of one (1) year and shall hold office until the earlier of the datetheir successors are duly elected and qualified or they no longer serve as a director.

Our current President will have termed out (i.e. no longer be a member of the board) immediately following the meeting of the general membership. Therefore, my questions are

1) who should preside over the first meeting of the new board, during which officers are elected? custom hass dictated that the former President (whether termed out or not) has done so.

2) if the outgoing President is not allowed to preside and / or attend the meeting, please provide a RR citation as I'm certain this will be necessary.

Thank you for your review and comments and I apologize for what is an obviously important distinction in the by-laws.

[hmtcastle]

1) who should preside over the first meeting of the new board, during which officers are elected? custom hass dictated that the former President (whether termed out or not) has done so.

In the absence of the president and vice-president, the secretary (or any member if the secretary is also absent) calls the meeting to order and conducts a brief election for a chair pro tem (a temporary presiding officer).

[Guest AJ]

In the absence of the president and vice-president, the secretary (or any member if the secretary is also absent) calls the meeting to order and conducts a brief election for a chair pro tem (a temporary presiding officer).

Am I correctly interpreting the by-laws that the current President is not allowed in the Board Meeting to elect new officers because he is termed out, per our by-laws?

[hmtcastle]

Am I correctly interpreting the by-laws that the current President is not allowed in the Board Meeting to elect new officers because he is termed out, per our by-laws?

If he's a member of the board he has a right to attend board meetings. If he's not, he doesn't. It matters not whether he's the president.

[Gary Novosielski]

Thank David for the input. I anticipate this will be one of those situations where "lines are drawn in the sand" and no one will drop out. What happens if the tie can't be broken?

The tie can always be broken. Eventually, some voters will get tired, fall asleep, give up, go home, or die of old age. But eventually someone gets elected. And you'll have a story to tell.

[Ajeanette]

Thank you all! Is there a specific RR citation I can point to with respect to deal with what has been customary in terms of the past President presiding over the new elections (and they are no longer a member of the board) and this clearly not being in line with how an election should be conduted.

I fully expect that this will not be a cake walk and the more credance I have to substantitate my actions and move this in the direction it should, the better.

[hmtcastle]

Is there a specific RR citation I can point to with respect to deal with what has been customary in terms of the past President presiding over the new elections (and they are no longer a member of the board) and this clearly not being in line with how an election should be conducted.

There is no restriction on who can be elected chair pro tem (i.e. he need not be a member of the board or even of the organization) so you're free to continue your custom of having the past president fill that role. If you want.

[Guest TiareBeauty]

Hello,

While holding an election there was only one person nominated for President and no floor nominations were taken. While doing discussions, this person was not elected. We then moved on to VP whom was successfully elected. Was this correct? Does VP move into the slot of President or were we suppose to first elect a President then move on with VP?

[Gary Novosielski]

While holding an election there was only one person nominated for President and no floor nominations were taken. While doing discussions, this person was not elected. We then moved on to VP whom was successfully elected. Was this correct? Does VP move into the slot of President or were we suppose to first elect a President then move on with VP?

Please ask this as a new topic, since the existing topic title does not apply to your question.

[Guest AJ]

Because I receive email notifications of new posts to my thread, it reminded me that I was neglectful in responding to everyone who provided invaluable information that assisted greatly in resolving the President election matter I posted in December. As anticipated, the first vote resulted in a tie and "members saw the writing on the wall" and during the next vote, one Director shifted and we were able to proceed without cause. I'm pleased to say that the organization is moving forward and all 'factions' have been essentially been brought on board.

Thanks again to all who provided invaluable insight and expertise...I / we appreciate you!!

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm pleased to say that the organization is moving forward and all 'factions' have been essentially been brought on board.

Wait, you meant this Robert's Rules thing actually might work? That is kinda cool.