dual chair bad

[shaeespring]

Check one:

• Semantic Change: something about the meaning of the text is different
• Non-semantic Change: Spelling, grammar, or formatting changes.

Summary of change(s):
Dual Chair allows for a vote to be tied if E-Board ties and also both chairs disagree
Dual Secretary (the only other non-voting E-Board position) doesn't need to be dual. Needs discussion

[ziti-zd]

Has their ever been a dual Chair? Additionally, how would that even work with the Chair now acting as the facilitator of dialogue at House Meetings (the selecting of/declaring the changing of topics that came with the clarifying question changes)?

I am in favor of these changes because I do not see any harm in them but want to better understand the context behind the loophole it is trying to remove.

[shaeespring]

No, there has never been a dual chair (Edit: since 1981. I'm not sure how to check before that) but there have been attempts. (One as recent as last year)

A dual chair wouldn't work. For the reason you brought up, but also because the chair is the tiebreaker in E-Board votes in the event of a tie. If there are two chairs, then you can have a tie of an E-Board vote.

In order for it to work, you would need to designate roles to each Chairperson, such as "this person can vote, this person is in charge of discussion, this person is point of contact for E-Board" etc.

We're also currently trying to talk to our advisor to find out if a Dual Chair is even allowed, as RIT policy might restrict it. In this case, all of Chair, Evals and Financials might be restricted to single directors.