JHB pretty much nailed the Roberts Rules on this one. Allow me to just expand slightly on the comment about the chair bearing undue influence. If you've ever been in a contentious debate where the chair takes the other side, then you will know first hand why the chair should remain neutral. The best example of this I've experienced, the chair turned the tide of the debate with his comments.

First, there is the issue of authority. Arguments from the chair will usually carry more influence with the undecided than arguments from the floor. The authority of the chair provides weight to arguments that they may not deserve.

Second, there is the issue of impartial access to the floor. Once the chair has made their position known, those in opposition may feel that they are not being given fair access to floor to make their case. They certainly are not given equal access to the chair to make their case.

Third, there is the question of repercussions. Once the chair has joined the debate, there is the risk that it will stifle the opposition out of fear of reprisal. Well formed arguments may go unheard because the speaker dares not want appear to cross the chair.

If the chair feels passionately about the issue, and cannot resist the urge to participate in the debate, then they should turn the gavel over to another officer for the duration.

Our President does vote but when I was Pres. I didn't as I felt it was more of the membership's decision not mine. The Board also has the opition of "stepping" back from voting when it involves their child's class, ie, the Honor Society needed our help becoming a National Honor Society and the President's daughter was one of the presenters/members. She didn't vote.
This works for us.

I am President of our PTO and we usually don't let the President vote unless thereis a tie.

I am president and also a member, so I think that gives me the right to vote. But I don't because in the 2 years I have been on the board the only thing that hasn't been majority I could see both sides so I stayed nuetral. Everything ended up okay in the end.

If your bylaws state that you follow "Roberts Rules of Order", then you may not need to explicitly state this. The idea is that the chair may be able to bear undue influence so generally should remain neutral.

The rule is that the president can vote 1) if the vote is by ballot (since no one knows who voted what), or 2) when his/her vote would change the results.

The most common scenario of #2 is "to break a tie" thus we see that wording a lot.

The less common case would be to force a tie. Say the vote is 5 against, 6 for that XYZ will happen. If the president votes "against", it forces a tie. Since a majority is needed to carry the vote, the motion would fail. Had the president not voted, the motion would have passed. Other examples, might be if you were only 1 vote away from a 2/3 majority needed.

Note this rule about voting applies only to issues within the business meeting. Like anyone else, the President has the right to cast a vote in elections.

Here's a link that may help you:
www.constitution.org/rror/rror-10.htm#58

[ 05-07-2003: Message edited by: JHB ]</p>

We are rewriting our bylaws and there is a big debate about whether or not the president can vote. The old bylaws say that he/she must remain neutral. Does this mean no voting? Help our meeting is tomorrow!!!