Should officers recuse themselves from a vote?

[Bob Novosel]

The situation is as follows:

 

President of this fraternal society announces his resignation between quadrennial conventions.

 

Bylaws state the VP acts as interim President until the National Board chooses the replacement.

 

At the National Board meeting, the VP and two other individuals are the only candidates.

 

The VP is the only candidate that is a member of the National Board.

 

I asked the VP/Interim President is he intended to:

    a) turn over the gavel to the next senior officer to run this portion of the meeting

    and

    recuse himself from the discussions and voting

 

He refused to do either, stating he was elected to his current position which gave him the authority to both run this portion of the meeting and to participate in the discussions and voting for the new President.    I pointed out the obvious conflict of interest and he repeated his position.

 

In the end, he did abstain from voting (although it might have been once he realized from the discussions which result was about to happen).

 

I found this to be improper?   Am I correct or was he correct?

 

 

 

[jstackpo]

The VP/Interim President was  right: he keeps on presiding: p.451. line 35 ff;

 

And he is free to vote for himself:   P. 407, line 34 to p. 408, line 7. 

[Bruce Lages]

However, if the election was not done by ballot, he should have refrained from voting since he was presiding at the time.

[Dan Honemann]

However, if the election was not done by ballot, he should have refrained from voting since he was presiding at the time.

 

Well, apparently he did what he should have done.