When a seat is up for election can President simply vote to keep the present person in the position they already have instead of voting on the seat?

[Guest Bell]

Let me start out by saying myself and the board are learning but yes our Robert Rules understanding is not that great. However I can usually find the answer this one has me stumped. Please bare with me and help me get this straightened out.

Elections for the executive committee where held last night. President, VP, Secretary and Treasurer were all supposed to be up for grabs.

The president had us nominate and vote on a new president. Then he said "I have my reasons for doing things this way so humor me". He then had the board make a motion to keep the current secretary and treasurer in the same seat. Without even asking if we wanted to remain in that position. No one quite understood what was happening but voted anyway and the vote was to keep them in the same positions.

He then held vote for the Vice President chair. The Secretary and Treasurer were excluded from nominations because they now had a new term in their seat. Could they have been nominated for VP even though there was a motion to retain them in their seats?

Did calling a motion to keep the current Treasurer and Secretary for another term violate Roberts Rules? Shouldn't we have voted on the seats since the term was up?

(No nominations were taken for the position)

Also where do I look to find someone locally who can teach Roberts rules to a group? I've had no lunck so far and we need it badly.

Thanks

Bell

[Tim Wynn]

Let me start out by saying myself and the board are learning but yes our Robert Rules understanding is not that great. However I can usually find the answer this one has me stumped. Please bare with me and help me get this straightened out.

Elections for the executive committee where held last night. President, VP, Secretary and Treasurer were all supposed to be up for grabs.

The president had us nominate and vote on a new president. Then he said "I have my reasons for doing things this way so humor me". He then had the board make a motion to keep the current secretary and treasurer in the same seat. Without even asking if we wanted to remain in that position. No one quite understood what was happening but voted anyway and the vote was to keep them in the same positions.

He then held vote for the Vice President chair. The Secretary and Treasurer were excluded from nominations because they now had a new term in their seat. Could they have been nominated for VP even though there was a motion to retain them in their seats?

Did calling a motion to keep the current Treasurer and Secretary for another term violate Roberts Rules? Shouldn't we have voted on the seats since the term was up?

(No nominations were taken for the position)

Also where do I look to find someone locally who can teach Roberts rules to a group? I've had no lunck so far and we need it badly.

Thanks

Bell

Yes on all accounts (with an asterisk here and there).

Feel free to click the link below for a little more assistance.

[David A Foulkes]

And on the outside chance you come up dry on the suggested link above....

you might try:

National Association of Parliamentarians

213 South Main St.

Independence, MO 64050-3850

Phone: 888-627-2929

Fax: 816-833-3893;

e-mail: hq@NAP2.org

<<www.parliamentarians.org>>

or

American Institute of Parliamentarians

550M Ritchie Highway #271

Severna Park, MD 21146

Phone: 888-664-0428

Fax: 410-544-4640

e-mail: aip@parliamentaryprocedure.org

<<www.parliamentaryprocedure.org>>

for a reference or information.

[Gerry4000]

Let me start out by saying myself and the board are learning but yes our Robert Rules understanding is not that great. However I can usually find the answer this one has me stumped. Please bare with me and help me get this straightened out.

Elections for the executive committee where held last night. President, VP, Secretary and Treasurer were all supposed to be up for grabs.

The president had us nominate and vote on a new president. Then he said "I have my reasons for doing things this way so humor me". He then had the board make a motion to keep the current secretary and treasurer in the same seat. Without even asking if we wanted to remain in that position. No one quite understood what was happening but voted anyway and the vote was to keep them in the same positions.

He then held vote for the Vice President chair. The Secretary and Treasurer were excluded from nominations because they now had a new term in their seat. Could they have been nominated for VP even though there was a motion to retain them in their seats?

Did calling a motion to keep the current Treasurer and Secretary for another term violate Roberts Rules? Shouldn't we have voted on the seats since the term was up?

(No nominations were taken for the position)

Also where do I look to find someone locally who can teach Roberts rules to a group? I've had no lunck so far and we need it badly.

Thanks

Bell

Just my 2 cents, but all the "training" in the world on Robert's Rules will not solve the basic problem you have - a President who wants to be a dictator and make up the rules as he goes. The folks in your organization, in my humbe opinion, need to tell the President that you will not stand for his being a dictator and his just making up rules. THEN, after you get his attention, he might be open to "training".

[David A Foulkes]

Just my 2 cents, but all the "training" in the world on Robert's Rules will not solve the basic problem you have - a President who wants to be a dictator and make up the rules as he goes. The folks in your organization, in my humbe opinion, need to tell the President that you will not stand for his being a dictator and his just making up rules. THEN, after you get his attention, he might be open to "training".

But, maybe with a little training (and a good bit more), the rest of the Board and the membership can reign in the president, learning about the proper rules, points of order, etc, and even Chapter XX. Gotta start somewhere.

[Guest Bell]

But, maybe with a little training (and a good bit more), the rest of the Board and the membership can reign in the president, learning about the proper rules, points of order, etc, and even Chapter XX. Gotta start somewhere.

Thanks for all the replies. BTW we did properly vote in a new president. It was the guy leaving office who went on the power trip. The new Pres is determined to see we get things running in proper order and without 3 hour meetings! So now it's just a matter of cleaning up the ordeal of the votes.

Thanks Again

Bell

[Josh Martin]

So now it's just a matter of cleaning up the ordeal of the votes.

If you're referring to the problems with voting to keep the Treasurer and Secretary, I'm afraid that although what happened was improper, it does not constitute a continuing breach. A Point of Order would have had to be raised at the time. Unless they resign, you're stuck with them.

[Guest Bell]

If you're referring to the problems with voting to keep the Treasurer and Secretary, I'm afraid that although what happened was improper, it does not constitute a continuing breach. A Point of Order would have had to be raised at the time. Unless they resign, you're stuck with them.

Point of order was made. Can anyone point me to the correct section to find info on this situation? I need to be able to site it so everyone else understands. Specifically what sections of Roberts Rules can I use to show this was an improper way to hold elections? I'm doing allot of reading and online searching but not finding anything that is to the point in it's description. The section on voting dosent really touch on this. Common sense tells you this was the wrong way to do a vote but I need to prove it.

Thanks for everyones help

Bell

[Guest Nancy N.]

Bell, you want to read about ten pages, beginning about p. 240, about a point of order, which objects to a violation of the rules, and an appeal of a ruling of the chair. Nominations and Elections is about adozen pages, beginning around p. 416.