Board Officer Elections & By-Laws Conflict

[Guest Bob C.]

I recently observed a meeting where a 12 member board attempted to elect new officers of the board and their was a major disagreement when all of the elections ended in 6-6 tie votes

Background:

The board is currently split into 2 "blocs" of 6 members each. One voting all to retain the current board officers and one all voting for the new nominees.

Their charter states that the board " select from , within the group a President, a Vice-President, a Secretary, and a Treasurer who shall continue in office for the period of two (2) years or until their successors are elected and seated. "

In their bylaws it states "Roberts' Rules shall govern its meetings".It also states under the duties of the officers that the president "shall: Not vote in meetings of the *board organization* except in the case a of tie."

The election was handed during a properly called special meeting. Motions were passed nominating board members for each position. A motion was passed to hold elections and a motion was passed to hold a roll call vote for the elections.

Following a series of tied votes and recesses, the argument was made that the president should abstain from voting as the by-laws supersede Roberts rules.

Another vote was held, with the president abstaining, and the sitting president lost his seat to the other nominee 6-5. In the next votes for the remaining officer positions, following another argument, the newly voted president had to abstain and the former president voted instead. All the remaining current officers were reelected 6-5.

The new president also acted as chair for the remainder of the meeting.

My questions are: what is the rule when Roberts rules of order conflict with the by-laws? And when are elected officers considered "seated"? Should the sitting president have continued in his role for the duration of the election, the duration of the meeting?

There is nothing in the charter or by-laws besides what i have quoted here that pertains to the election of officers. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The rules in the bylaws supersede those in RONR. Ultimately it is up to your organization to interpret your bylaws.

[Steven Britton]

25 minutes ago, Guest Bob C. said:

when are elected officers considered "seated"? Should the sitting president have continued in his role for the duration of the election, the duration of the meeting?

Based on what you've stated is complete,  and nothing in the bylaws conflicts, the new president takes  possession of the office when the election becomes final. See RONR, 11th ed., p. 444, ll. 28 - 30.

[Gary c Tesser]

7 hours ago, Guest Bob C. said:

...My questions are: what is the rule when Roberts rules of order conflict with the by-laws? And when are elected officers considered "seated"? Should the sitting president have continued in his role for the duration of the election, the duration of the meeting?

There is nothing in the charter or by-laws besides what i have quoted here that pertains to the election of officers. 

7 hours ago, Guest Bob C. said:

... My questions are: what is the rule when Roberts rules of order conflict with the by-laws? And when are elected officers considered "seated"? Should the sitting president have continued in his role for the duration of the election, the duration of the meeting?

(Ghoddamn crappy interface)

1.  The bylaws always win.  (Great Steaming Cobnuts, there might be exceptions.)

2. When their elections are final.

3. No:  when the election was final, he was thoroughly out of office, so he had no place conductng the meeting than anyone else on Earth.

_________

N. B. citations available on request.  25 cents each.