During a course on Robert's Rules of Order, I was asked this question: At our annual general meeting we debated a controversial motion to change the organization's name. When it came to the vote, the result was a tie, 64 yes and 64 no votes. The Chair then voted in favor of the motion and broke the tie. With 65 yes and 64 no votes, the motion was deemed adopted and we now have a new name. Many people were shocked and unhappy and asked: Was the Chair's decision to break the tie morally and technically correct?"

Most individuals would respond to the above question with a resounding NO, but with the wrong reasons. Two typical reasons are often cited. First is the misguided belief that the Chair must act as a referee and should never vote. Second is the belief that - even if this Chair were technically not precluded from voting - he should have abstained, since the issue was far too divisive.

The problem with the first reason is that it is technically incorrect. If the Chair is a voting member, he or she is not precluded from voting, unless the legislation or bylaws so stipulate. Often the Chair withholds his or her vote unless it alters the outcome. For example: If a motion that requires a majority (more than 50% of the votes) receives a tie it would be defeated, but a Chair who favors it may vote yes and thereby cause it to pass. Similarly, a motion that requires a majority vote and receives 54 yes and 53 no votes would be adopted, unless the Chair opts to vote no and create a tie, thereby causing its defeat.

For general information, under Robert's Rules of Order, the Chair of a large voting assembly usually refrains from voting, unless the vote is by secret ballot or unless the Chair's vote would alter the outcome (as shown above) and the Chair wishes to do so.

The problem with the second reason is the premise that the Chair is expected to maintain a neutral position and avoid taking sides in a controversy, even if he or she is not precluded from voting. This argument is not technical but moral, but it is still flawed.. In the above situation, the Chair would have effectively taken sides regardless of whether he had voted or not voted. By voting yes, he annoyed the opponents. Had he not voted, he would have annoyed the proponents (who would have preferred him to vote yes and break the tie).

Given the above analysis, it would have been okay for the above Chair to vote if his vote had altered the outcome. But did his vote actually alter the outcome? As the title of this article suggests, this is a trick question.

In the above case the Chair's vote made no difference and - with 65 in favor and 64 against - the motion was still defeated. Why? As is often the case, the organization's name was included in the Constitution, and changing the name required a constitutional amendment. In the case of this organization, a Constitutional amendment required a 75% vote to adopt, and a majority was not sufficient. Clearly then, The Chair's vote made no difference in the outcome and he should have therefore abstained.

The lesson? When you're about to respond to a procedural question, check the assumptions made by the person asking it. In this case, the person's flawed assumption was that a majority (65 to 64) was sufficient to adopt the motion.