Actually the "tie vote thing" also exists at your board meetings. Just last month this happened as I chaired our executive board meeting. The question was on limiting the number of Citizenship Awards each school could submit to council for recognition. Though I did not agree with the "cap" I knew we could later amend it so I did not vote my "tie vote" that would have killed the motion altogether. It does happen, when you least expect it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>.KC Swan)( However, if you think the president being called upon to decide a vote isn't ugly enough, consider the issue controversial enough that the co-Presidents vote in opposite ways.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly the point.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>(Susieq04)This alone can destroy a unit. Your membership then gets involved in the dispute and it splits and then everyone is mad at everyone and there is no unity instead you may have 2 "teams" instead of 1 unit. i would not recommend CO's at all. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I really don't know of anything so contraversial at a PTO/A meeting that could result in this, but hey sometimes its hard to come to an agreement on what color paper to print the newsletter on. (i prefer yellow)
I hear that the board may be down for a few days, so everyone have a great weekend. Be ready for me next week, as fundraiser pickup is Wednesday, same night as bookfair! I'm sure to have some stories to tell!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The reason for the dissolution of co-pres in the PTA was that two people cannot hold the same position and have 2 votes, as the president is there to oversee meetings and cast the deciding vote in case of a tie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In the absence of rules specifying otherwise, the president has a vote just like any other member. However, in the interest of appearing impartial in the administration of a meeting, the president should refrain from voting unless their vote is necessary to determine an outcome: either by casting a deciding vote in the event of a tie, or by casting a vote to defeat a motion by creating a tie.
The "tie-breaking" capacity of the president is insufficient to invalidate the concept of a co-Presidency. However, if you think the president being called upon to decide a vote isn't ugly enough, consider the issue controversial enough that the co-Presidents vote in opposite ways.
We actually just covered this at a recent seminar. The reason for the dissolution of co-pres in the PTA was that two people cannot hold the same position and have 2 votes, as the president is there to oversee meetings and cast the deciding vote in case of a tie. As one entity, the presidency is a one vote position. Our unit has a president and a president elect. They are elected every other opposite year(did that make sense?) The pres-elect is kind of the pres in training and IS entitled to his/her own vote, but the president is the tiebreaker vote. Obviously you can run into problems with 2 presidents trying to cast that tiebreaking vote. The trend now has been to go to the 1st VP, 2nd and so on.
It made sense once they brought up the tiebreak thing. Not that we've ever needed that vote, but I guess its good to know that we're covered. That's the scenario that can get you into trouble with co-presidents.
I am a co-President, and in my six years at the school we have had co-Presidents four of them. It has worked for us because the co-Presidents have always been able to each bring something to the table the other lacks.
The important thing is that the two people are running as a team. Somebody who expects to have the job alone cannot have a co-President forced upon them. Nor can somebody find themself elected with a different co-President than they were counting on.
I understand the concerns about the concept. Our by-law revision committee debated it at length before deciding to leave co-office holders in there. But we haven't regretted it yet.
The only reference I found in Robert's Rules of Order on Co-Chairing was in Designating Committee Chairman.(10th edition newly revised page 168) "The anomalous title "co-chair" should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share teh functions of a single position"
I am sure this would be the same opinion for presidency.
