jstackpo Posted June 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 at 12:16 PM An organization has a proper "or until..." clause in its bylaws in the specification of the terms of office. The org, for whatever reason, fails to elect a (new) president at the regular election meeting. The current president agrees to continue in office. After a while (weeks, months?), the president gets tired of this and resigns. When his resignation is accepted does this create... 1) A vacancy in office into which the VP automatically moves? or 2) A requirement to try again to elect a president, as the non-occupancy (I don't want to use the word "vacancy" here) of the presidential office is essentially the result of an incomplete election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 14, 2013 at 01:19 PM Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 at 01:19 PM Not enough facts. We need to know exactly what the bylaws say about elections, and why the organization failed to elect a president ("for whatever reason" isn't helpful). We also need to know what is meant by "The current president agrees to continue in office." If he agreed to do so, it appears as if the assembly must have asked him to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 14, 2013 at 01:43 PM Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 at 01:43 PM Here's some details (which I am making up, of course): Bylaws are identical to those of the RONR Society, p. 583-588 "Failed" because there were no nominees for the presidency and no write-in votes for anybody. The president "agreed" because he knew what the bylaws said, and went along with that mandate. The association members also knew what the bylaws said (I know, I know, this is sheer fantasy) and anticipated the president's continuation in office. He wasn't formally asked because there was no need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 14, 2013 at 02:47 PM Report Share Posted June 14, 2013 at 02:47 PM "Failed" because there were no nominees for the presidency and no write-in votes for anybody. To clarify, the assembly postpones the election after a few rounds of this, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 15, 2013 at 01:50 AM Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 at 01:50 AM Yes, sure.My main question or point is that some time has passed since the election meeting and the same person is still serving as president -- no new person was elected.When he decides to resign, what does he "leave behind", an incomplete election or a vacancy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM Report Share Posted June 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM Yes, sure.My main question or point is that some time has passed since the election meeting and the same person is still serving as president -- no new person was elected.When he decides to resign, what does he "leave behind", an incomplete election or a vacancy? Based upon the additional facts provided, it seems that there was, and continues to be, an incomplete election which should be completed asap, regardless of whether or not the president wants to resign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 17, 2013 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted June 17, 2013 at 04:08 PM If the society just let things slide by relying upon the "or until" clause, then they were failing in their duty to complete the election. That doesn't mean the election is complete because they ignored it, but rather that, through fatigue or forgetfulness, they dropped the election ball. That's not easy since they were presumably postponing the election for meeting after meeting, and it would continue to come up in due course at the following meeting. This could probably have been avoided if the president had not merely agreed to hang around, but rather agreed to run for reelection in one of those many attempts to complete the election. He presumably would have won by acclamation. Then, if he resigned months later, there would be no question that a vacancy had occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.