Can President opt not to preside

[Jayadev]

Our not for profit organization constitution clearly says  the President of Board of Trustees preside over the Board Meetings. While in his absence vice president can preside over the meetings. But in the last meeting while president was present Vice president presided over the meeting and president participated as a member. Is this Okay? Thanks in advance

[Chris Harrison]

Does it violate any rules...no (RONR pp. 452-453).  Is it okay (is it acceptable to the Board)...that is for you all to decide for yourselves.  Personally I would probably raise my eyebrows at the President voluntarily allowing the VP to preside over a whole meeting unless he had a darn good reason (which there could be plenty of).

[Jayadev]

Thanks

Jay

[Richard Brown]

It is customary (and is a rule in RONR) that if the presiding officer wants to make a motion or participate in debate, he should relinquish the chair until the matter is concluded.  It is not customary or required to relinquish it for the entire meeting.

However, it is permissible for the president to have the vice president or some other person preside for most or all of an entire meeting. It is probably not extremely common, but neither is it extremely rare. It varies from organization to organization. There can be many reasons for it.  Sometimes it is because the VP is better at presiding.  Sometimes it is to give the vice president who is expected to become the next president experience in presiding.  My own local NAP unit does it to give members practice in presiding, but we have a provision in our bylaws specifically authorizing it.   As long  as the president and the temporary presiding officer AND the members are ok with it, it can be and usually is done by unanimous consent. 

In your case, it could be that the president mistakenly thought that if he participated in the meeting as a member, he had to relinquish the chair for the entire meeting rather than just until that motion was disposed of.  Or he may have had another reason.

If anyone objects to the practice by making a point of order that the president should be presiding, the chair will (or should) rule on it.  His ruling can be appealed to the assembly, which has the final word.

Question:  I'm curious as to why you have an issue with the president letting the VP preside at a meeting?

[Shmuel Gerber]

8 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Question:  I'm curious as to why you have an issue with the president letting the VP preside at a meeting?

I think the OP has already stated why:

18 hours ago, jay said:

Our not for profit organization constitution clearly says  the President of Board of Trustees preside over the Board Meetings. While in his absence vice president can preside over the meetings.

 

[Joshua Katz]

The Senate is almost never presided over by its President - although if I ever were to find myself VP, I like to think I'd go preside and shake things up a bit.