NotSure

I appreciate all the replies, I have some things to think about as far as next moves. Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.

I'm talking about actual duties. The President's duties is to act as Chair in the meetings, but the title of "President" does not give them the right to speak for the board on matters the board has not directed them to, or act unilaterally for instance, or to act like they are the boss of the board or the meetings. I am familiar with the text you are referring to, the problem is, the President lies to them and tells them that they are not required to use RONR if they don't want to, and since they perceive this person as the boss, they do not know they can remove him. the ones I have spoken to act as if it would hurt this person's feelings, or might offend them and make them a target for some kind of retaliation. When I try to show them the text, the response has been a blank look, zero interest, or a sentiment that they do not want to rock the boat.

The Vice president has no interest in knowing what needs to be known, and has been told by the president several times that RONR doesn't matter, and that people just need to have a "thick skin" when it comes to personal remarks, and if people have opinions about others they are free to express them, and basically that people who complain about being interrupted or talked over just need to "jump in" and talk louder (and faster, if they don't want to be cut off).

But he is not president of the Board, he is president of the Association, which is an admin title and role that has duties that mostly take place outside of meetings. It's my understanding that as Chair, the authority the Chair has is over the Parliamentary Rules, and making sure they are functioning and being used properly. It is my understanding that the Chair is not in charge of the meetings, or the Board, but only serves as a facilitator in the process of the meetings, and in helping the group becoming informed through discussion and then facilitating business carried out through motions and voting, etc. It is my understanding that the "President" has no more authority on any other matter than any other Board member, and should not act as if they do.

If Robert's Rules is the officially adopted rules, and the President states they are not interested in the duties of the Chair as they are defined in RONR, and ignores things like learning actual Parliamentary Procedure, does not enforce decorum (and in fact is the worst violator of it) and does not know or bring copies of the governing documents or RONR text to meetings, can they really be considered a Presider? The person in question has also lied to the rest of the group regarding the required use of RONR. Is it not true that even if there were no adopted rules, that an alternate Parliamentary Rules must be used?

Yes, That is true. I realized there were more specific things I wanted to address, as well as include some new details.

I appreciate all the feedback.

Thank you.

Only the board was called upon to vote. They treated the annual meeting exactly like a board meeting. The other homeowner chiming in only did so when he was told he could by the person who had nominated themselves.

Would it ever be appropriate, according to RONR, for a chair to any of the following, and does it change anything that this person is also the "President" (of an HOA... no special powers listed in bylaws)? If any of these are inappropriate, how bad of a breech would they be considered, if in a group where the rules were being used properly? 1. After a nomination from the floor for an eligible person to become a Board member, during an annual meeting, to initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote on whether they wanted that particular person on the Board? There were two spots open, and no other floor nominations. 2. To initiate a vote asking for the Board to vote the character of another Board member? 3. To publicly ask other Board members to comment during a meeting if a Board member is being sincere in something they have said about themselves? 4. To state publicly that they themselves did not believe a Board member was being sincere about something they have said about themselves? 5. To initiate a spontaneous vote during a public Board meeting, asking the other Board members if they wanted a specific Board member to resign? (This was after one Board member said "You should resign" during a public Board meeting to a specific Board member, and the President, instead of calling that member to order, then asked the others to vote on the spot if they felt the same way). 6. To repeatedly admonish and criticize a Board member publicly during a meeting? Thanks for your time

When I nominated myself, the chair initiated a motion to ask the other board members if they wanted me on the board (I had been on it already for 5 years). They took a vote, during the annual meeting, so it was very public, which I understand was not supposed to happen. The chair never actually said whether or not the motion she made to have me on the board passed or failed because the property manager interrupted the process by telling the chair it was "legal" for me to become a board member by electing myself and then having someone vote in my favor (even though I also voted during the bogus vote, and my own vote should have counted in this context). At the "Discussion" point, which she was just going to push past without any call for it, I told her I had someone to say. I said my health issues were improving, and I had something to offer, etc. When I finished, she asked the other board members "Do you buy that?" then a second later "Yeah, me neither..." then right when she was about to call the motion as passed, after I was the only one who voted for myself, another homeowner chimed in and said he'd vote for me, then the property manager interrupted, and then the chair made a personal remark about me, and then the Annual meeting was adjourned and the Board meeting began, which I participated in (3 hours) Then at the end of the meeting, 3 hours later, when about to go into Executive, the manager chimed back in and said I was not elected because there was no ballot with my name written on it, and that I had to be a "write in candidate". I was participating by phone, so there was no way for me to hand a ballot to them, and also-there was 3 whole hours for this information to be relayed to me, if that was a real requirement. I could have arranged for that piece of paper to be given to them, but at this point, I was told I was no longer a board member. When I tried to contest this situation, the manager argued with me and made several personal remarks, then told the Chair to hang up on me, which she did.

I received a vote from another homeowner, but that did not seem to matter to them. I did mention it in either the first post or a follow up response. Like I mentioned before, they said during the annual meeting that it was "legal" for me to get on the board through a floor nomination and a vote. The same person came back at the end of the Board meeting that I was not elected because there was no ballot. This person wa the property manager, not the chair, and the chair just said "Gee, I guess you're not a board member after all" and when I told the property manage I thought she was mistaken about a floor nomination having to be seen as a write in candidate (this was her argument) she instructed the chairperson to hang up on me since they were going into Executive Session, who then did hang up on me. It was here that I mentioned the other person-who was not a board member, but a homeowner during the annual meeting-who spoke up and said they voted for me to be on the boad.

One other person did vote for me, when I nominated myself another homeowner who was also participating by phone voted for me.

Which part is not making sense? Just an FYI... I am dealing with a group of people who are highly critical of RONR, and not at all knowledgeable about any of it's processes, despite it being the officially adopted rules. They flat out said they did not care about Decorum, and the person who is called president specifically aid they were not willing to learn, know or practice the 11 duties of the chair, and that Decorum would not be followed. They do not believe members have any rights.