Well…I promised not to write about this but I’m feeling like Al Pacino in Godfather VIII, “I try to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!” To get caught up…check out my tweets at http://twitter.com/CouncilorCotto.
So…we have a new Democratic Town Chair in Jean Holloway this evening after a drama filled evening at City Hall…or do we? The drama started with the voting of a temporary chair for the elections. This was between Ramon Arroyo and Hector Robles. Ramon won by a vote of 34 to 32 (out of 66 present)…pretty innocent right? Think again!
When the votes for Chair was taken between Sean Arena and Jean Holloway, the official count was 33-33 when Chair Ramon Arroyo announces “As chair I will cast a vote to break the tie. I cast my vote for Miss Holloway and declare her winner!” Pan – De (friggin) Monium!! Literally, half the crowd erupted into cheers and the other half screaming WTF!!
Parliamentarian John Gale announced that no one, not even the chair can vote twice. John Kennelly led the charge by debating what version of Roberts Rule was he using and saying that his own version states that said action was possible. He actually used my computer so I will cut n paste from the exact place that he cited:
Question 1:
Is it true that the president can vote only to break a tie?
Answer:
No, it is not true that the president can vote only to break a tie. If the president is a member of the assembly, he or she has exactly the same rights and privileges as all other members have, including the right to make motions, speak in debate and to vote on all questions. However, the impartiality required of the presiding officer of an assembly (especially a large one) precludes exercising the right to make motions or debate while presiding, and also requires refraining from voting except (i) when the vote is by ballot, or (ii) whenever his or her vote will affect the result.
When will the chair’s vote affect the result? On a vote which is not by ballot, if a majority vote is required and there is a tie, he or she may vote in the affirmative to cause the motion to prevail. If there is one more in the affirmative than in the negative, he or she can create a tie by voting in the negative to cause the motion to fail. Similarly, if a two-thirds vote is required, he or she may vote either to cause, or to block, attainment of the necessary two thirds. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 392-93; see also Table A, p.190 of RONR In Brief.]
My own scan of the online Roberts Rules says the following (I italicized the part that seems to agree with the above, and bold the part that seems to apply to the happenings of this evening) :
(Article VIII • Section 46) When a quorum [64] is present, a majority vote, that is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks, is sufficient for the adoption of any motion that is in order, except those mentioned in 48, which require a two-thirds vote. A plurality never adopts a motion nor elects any one to office, unless by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. On a tie vote the motion is lost, and the chair, if a member of the assembly, may vote to make it a tie unless the vote is by ballot. The chair cannot, however, vote twice, first to make a tie and then give the casting vote. In case of an appeal [21], though the question is, “Shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the assembly?” a tie vote, even though his vote made it a tie, sustains the chair, upon the principle that the decision of the chair can be reversed only by a majority, including the chair if a member of the assembly.
There’s alot for us non-lawyers to digest. The first paragraph of the version cited by Kennelly seems to say that a chair of such a vote, except if by ballot, is required to refrain from voting. The term “by ballot” is thrown about alot and my own thought is that “by ballot” means when there is an actual paper ballot. This evening there was no paper ballot. The next paragraph of the same section states that a chair can vote to break the tie. Which makes a little sense since, if the chair was supposed to refrain from voting in the first place, s/he can exercise their right to vote in order to break a tie.
Now the next section is very explicit on the voting twice issue. “The chair cannot, however, vote twice, first to make a tie and then give the casting vote.” Temporary chair Arroyo voted once for Holloway, therefore, his vote created a tie situation. His subsequent vote to break the tie seemingly contradicts this rule.
Regardless of all the hub-bub, Jean Holloway took the chair and proceeded to run the meeting. One more vote was taken for Lou Watkins as Vice Chair where all the “Arena People” abstained. It was at this time where Arena and most of his people walked out.
To be continued…
you are correct here…Kennelly is mis-reading Roberts….I believe that a Temporary Chair cannot vote twice…While I am certainly no fan of Mr Arena, I think his point of view would prevail at Democratic State Central or in Court.
I was delighted to read this explanation of the proceedings after following your live tweets last night. Another lawyer weighs in…no fat jokes, Councilor. If there had been a vote by ballot (as distinguishable from a vote by show of hands, ays or nays, or acclimation) and Arroyo voted, and the result was a tie, he could have declared the winner and, in the absence of a vote by a simple majority to overrule the chair, his decision would stand. He would not be “breaking the tie” by voting, but “making a decision as the judgment of the assembly.”
If he had abstained from voting because the vote was by show of hands (proper because it avoids the appearance of partisanship by the chair), then the vote would presumably have been 33-32 and there would not have been a tie.
While there is a good argument that the vote was flawed because the vote was not by ballot and Arroyo did not abstain (except in the event of a tie vote). However…same rule kicks in…there would have to be a majority vote to overrule the chair on the issue, which presumably would not have been successful.
The other problem is that the state party rules are sufficiently vague to make it sound as if a chairperson can vote as a delegate and as a chair.
Well, the body had 100% attendance with 66 so we might be seeing these types of tied votes in the future.
[...] Then, someone voted a second time (seriously), the committee called it a win for Holloway, Arena pledged to fight the result, and everyone is headed to state party headquarters today for some advice. Here’s Working Families Party Councilman Luis Cotto’s take on it. [...]
Peter G…Kelly I assume?..there was no “ballot” as defined in Robert’s Rules..therefore the tie should not have been broken
Luis: Perhaps this will help to understand the result of last evening:
I question 1) the applicability of Roberts Rules of Order in last evening’s tie election scenario to begin with, primarily because they typically only apply when the party rules do not address the particular matter(=tie vote).
I also question any vagueness of the State Dem Party rules (www.ctdems.org) regarding a town committee’s election of officers in a situation where the local party does not elect to follow their own local rules and a tie occurs in the election of town committee officers(See Art VIII, section 7). Their rules also speak to when a tie occurs when a Town Committee is endorsing Town Committee Members (not done in Hartford), and endorsing Delegates to Conventions (Art. VIII, section 19) and when a Town Committee is filling a vacancy of a previously nominated person for a municipal office (Art. VIII, section 22). Perhaps surprising to some, in all of these situations, the chairperson of those meetings appears clearly enabled to vote as a member of his/her town committee AS WELL AS to vote as the chairperson to dissolve a tie vote: “the chair may vote to break a tie, but this provision shall not affect his/her right to cast any vote, as a member of the Town Committee, in the first place.”
That’s cool. Except everyone and their mom was mentioning Roberts Rule and the debate that I heard centered around who had what updated version. I was even on my way out when I was asked to loan my computer for a quick research…and that’s when people speaking on both sides of the debate used said machine to hammer out why they felt they were right. I’m sure someone spoke up about the State rules, but acoustics there are awful.
However, I just spoke to someone who told me (basically what you’re saying) that the State Party rules (which I guess trumps RRO) allows what happened yesterday to happen.
fun times…
The State Party Rules only trump the local ones where for instance the local rules may be silent…or vague ..or ambiguious..which isn’t the case here.In all other instances the local rules govern…and the local rules state clearly that Robert’s Rules are the guide on all parlimentary issues( article5,section1),so the State Party Rules will not not apply since the local party’s rules are clear and explicit as to what the controlling authority is.That being said,Roberts RUles is clear in Section 43 that a temporary chair cannot break a tie…
I believe when Sean did not call the meeting within 48 hours pursuant to the local rules but chose instead to follow the state rules and call the meeting within 30 days, he submitted the reconstitution of the Town Committee, which occurs every two years and involves calling the meeting and electing new officers, to the state party rules. He couldn’t then cherry pick which rules he wanted to follow (local or state) for which issue may arise (calling the meeting, how to resolve a tie vote, etc.) – Once he chose to proceed under the state party rules, he would be required to stay with them.
No….there is no “incorporation” that mandates adhersion to all the state party rules simply because one elects to provide notice pursuant to a certain state party rule.There is absolutely no authority by either statute,case law or the decision precedents of state central ( i saw most of the precedents in my time as finance chair)Whether the entire “tie matter” is under the state party rules simply because Mr Arena chose to use the looser state party rules as to notice, doesnt mean that the state party rules would govern something substantive like the “tie matter”..it will be a panel decision, selected by state central.I suspect since the state party rules are clear about superceeding only when a local bylaw might be silent,vague or ambiguious, the tendency of a neutral panel will be to punt on some “adhersion” or “incorporation” theory.But we will all see shortly.
In addition neither the local or state party rules explicitly say that once you notify a town committee using the looser state rules that then your entire subject matter of the meeting is then under the state party rules.
Well…the state central decision is in and it verified everything I said.Poor strategy from Holloway’s strategy team may well cost her the chairmanship on the revote as now Mr Arena is cloaked with a certain momentum and sympathy.