Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Resignation of newly elected officer immediately following election


Guest electionorganizer

Recommended Posts

Guest electionorganizer

A candidate for elected officer position is running with a slate, but the positions are elected separately. Candidate doesn't wish to serve if the slate is not elected. All positions are on one ballot. Bylaws call for an election to fill a vacancy in the event of an officer resignation.

 

The question is, if the candidate is elected and concedes or resigns immediately (say, after the results are announced, but before the swearing-in), can the organization hold a run-off among the remaining candidates instead of holding another election on a separate date? Organizing these meetings takes months and costs thousands of dollars; obviously nobody wants this.

 

Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A candidate for elected officer position is running with a slate, but the positions are elected separately.

Candidate doesn't wish to serve if the slate is not elected.

All positions are on one ballot.

Bylaws call for an election to fill a vacancy in the event of an officer resignation.

 

The question is,

 

if the candidate is elected and concedes or resigns immediately

(say, after the results are announced, but before the swearing-in),

can the organization hold a run-off among the remaining candidates

instead of holding another election on a separate date?

 

Organizing these meetings takes months and costs thousands of dollars; obviously nobody wants this.

I a not sure of the focus of your question:

(1.)  timing? ("separate date")

(2.) pool of candidates? ("run off")

 

You cannot limit the voters to choosing only from the pool of remaining candidates.

The voters are always free to vote for a new person, perhaps someone who is not nominated, or who chooses to run now after this first round of balloting.

 

But if you are asking can you hold the election the same day as when the election is held and when the results are announced, then, yes, Round Two can be conducted right then and there.

 

Indeed that is the typical arrangement:

* Meeting convenes at 8:00 pm.

* Election conducted at 8:30 pm.

* Results announced at 9:00 pm. -- with one winner immediately declining.

* Round Two is held at 9:05 pm for that single seat.

* Results announced at 9:30 pm -- with winner accepting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But if you are asking can you hold the election the same day as when the election is held and when the results are announced, then, yes, Round Two can be conducted right then and there.

Oh, no it can't (most likely).

 

P. 468 & p. 575 make it clear that notice must be given for an election to fill a vacancy (unless the bylaws say otherwise).   So check the bylaws carefully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation doesn't seem to fit the definition of an "incomplete election" found on p. 444.  See some related discussion here.

 

The candidate presumably consented to his nomination and (potential) election ahead of time.  That would seem to be enough to make the election "final".   So his only way "out" is to resign.

 

Of course, if his election came as a complete surprise to him, he could "decline", which would make the election incomplete.  So I guess it may depend on the facts of the situation  --  that we don't have at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation doesn't seem to fit the definition of an "incomplete election" found on p. 444.

 

The candidate presumably consented to his nomination and (potential) election ahead of time.  That would seem to be enough to make the election "final".   So his only way "out" is to resign.

 

Of course, if his election came as a complete surprise to him, he could "decline", which would make the election incomplete.  So I guess it may depend on the facts of the situation  --  that we don't have at hand.

 

Oh, I  think that even in the unlikely event that he accepts the office and thereafter resigns during the same meeting, an election may be held immediately to fill the resultant vacancy, since members are already on notice that an election to fill this office will be held at this meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bylaws call for an election to fill a vacancy in the event of an officer resignation. . . . Organizing these meetings takes months and costs thousands of dollars; obviously nobody wants this.

 

So, if an officer resigns in the middle of his term you need to spend thousands of dollars to organize a meeting? And wait months before the vacancy is filled? Seems like you might want to consider amending your bylaws to authorize the board (or some committee) to fill mid-term vacancies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no it can't (most likely).

 

P. 468 & p. 575 make it clear that notice must be given for an election to fill a vacancy (unless the bylaws say otherwise).   So check the bylaws carefully.

If the winner is present and immediately declines, there is no need for notice beyond what was given that this election was taking place.  The as yet incomplete election can continue with a second ballot.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The candidate presumably consented to his nomination and (potential) election ahead of time. That would seem to be enough to make the election "final". So his only way "out" is to resign.

My understanding was that this rule regarding the finality of an election applied to members who were absent at the time of the election. If the member is present at the time of election, then it seems to me that he may immediately decline, notwithstanding that he may have previously consented to serve if elected. The assembly may then immediately proceed to complete the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding was that this rule regarding the finality of an election applied to members who were absent at the time of the election. If the member is present at the time of election, then it seems to me that he may immediately decline, notwithstanding that he may have previously consented to serve if elected. The assembly may then immediately proceed to complete the election.

 

Seems to me you may be disagreeing with your own position stated in Posting # 13 in This Thread.

 

Your position in #13:  The election is complete, therefore reconsideration is not proper.

 

So if the election is complete, then the only way "out" for the electee is to resign.  And a resignation generates a vacancy (with consequent notice requirements, &c.), not an opportunity for "completion".

 

But I agree, the book leaves out one option, the last in this list:

 

1)  Prior agreement, absent on election day =  Final

2)  NO prior agreement, absent on election day, consents when informed  =  Final;  if not consent  =  Incomplete

3)  NO prior agreement, present on election day, does not decline  =  Final

 

4) Prior agreement, present on election day, changes his mind, states "Non Serviam!"  =  XXXX 

 

You say XXXX = Incomplete;   I contend XXXX = Final then resignation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me you may be disagreeing with your own position stated in Posting # 13 in This Thread.

 

Your position in #13:  The election is complete, therefore reconsideration is not proper.

 

So if the election is complete, then the only way "out" for the electee is to resign.  And a resignation generates a vacancy (with consequent notice requirements, &c.), not an opportunity for "completion".

 

But I agree, the book leaves out one option, the last in this list:

 

1)  Prior agreement, absent on election day =  Final

2)  NO prior agreement, absent on election day, consents when informed  =  Final;  if not consent  =  Incomplete

3)  NO prior agreement, present on election day, does not decline  =  Final

 

4) Prior agreement, present on election day, changes his mind, states "Non Serviam!"  =  XXXX 

 

You say XXXX = Incomplete;   I contend XXXX = Final then resignation.

 

As best I can determine, Josh has this right, and his position here is in no respect inconsistent with what he said in post #13 in the previous thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4) Prior agreement, present on election day, changes his mind, states "Non Serviam!"  =  XXXX 

 

You say XXXX = Incomplete;   I contend XXXX = Final then resignation.

 

So just because a candidate indicates that, if elected, he will serve, he loses his right to decline the election on the spot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup; If not, what is the point of asking him, ahead of time, if he will serve?

 

He said, in advance, he would serve, he was at the meeting, saw he was elected, and then looked around at the other winners (in horror), then resigned (in disgust).   [i would vote, quickly, to accept his resignation.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup; If not, what is the point of asking him, ahead of time, if he will serve?

The point is to avoid an incomplete election if he's absent.

 

He said, in advance, he would serve, he was at the meeting, saw he was elected, and then looked around at the other winners (in horror), then resigned (in disgust).

Well, if he "resigned" then I guess you could say he had first accepted the office.

But if he refuses the office there's no need to resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems to me you may be disagreeing with your own position stated in Posting # 13 in This Thread.

Your position in #13: The election is complete, therefore reconsideration is not proper.

So if the election is complete, then the only way "out" for the electee is to resign. And a resignation generates a vacancy (with consequent notice requirements, &c.), not an opportunity for "completion".

But I agree, the book leaves out one option, the last in this list:

1) Prior agreement, absent on election day = Final

2) NO prior agreement, absent on election day, consents when informed = Final; if not consent = Incomplete

3) NO prior agreement, present on election day, does not decline = Final

4) Prior agreement, present on election day, changes his mind, states "Non Serviam!" = XXXX

You say XXXX = Incomplete; I contend XXXX = Final then resignation.

The question Mr. Mervosh posted in that thread, which I replied to in Post #13, was regarding whether an election could be reconsidered if an absent candidate had not learned of his election, but had previously agreed to serve.

What is said on pg. 444 is "An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy." Whether a candidate who is present has previously consented to his candidacy doesn't seem to matter. Therefore, it seems to me that if a candidate is present the election is final if the candidate does not immediately decline, whether or not he has previously consented to serve.

Yup; If not, what is the point of asking him, ahead of time, if he will serve?

He said, in advance, he would serve, he was at the meeting, saw he was elected, and then looked around at the other winners (in horror), then resigned (in disgust). [i would vote, quickly, to accept his resignation.]

The purpose of asking a candidate in advance whether he will consent to serve is in case the candidate is absent. Without such consent, the assembly would have no way of knowing whether an absent candidate declines, and therefore, when such consent is not given, the Secretary must inform the candidate of his election, and the election is final if he does not decline after he learns of his election. If it is known in advance that the candidate will serve if elected, this can save a great deal of time.

This logic does not apply when a candidate is present, since he may immediately decline (or not) at the time of his election. A candidate's consent to serve is helpful information, not a binding contract. The candidate, if present, is free to change his mind if and when he is actually elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just to overdue the argument, the person is in the office just as soon as the election is "Final", which clearly is the moment the president announces or "declares" (after restating the numerical election results) that Joe is Elected to [office].  p. 418

 

Now, I suppose that if Joe jumps up as (or when) the teller finished reading the numerical results, (and before the president picked up on his part of the dialog) and says "No WAY!!!" that would "count" as a withdrawal and lead to an incomplete election.  But after he is declared elected?  No way!  Resignation city!

 

This assumes that the announcement of the election results is run properly  --  a relatively rare event in my experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just to overdue the argument, the person is in the office just as soon as the election is "Final", which clearly is the moment the president announces or "declares" (after restating the numerical election results) that Joe is Elected to [office]. p. 418

Now, I suppose that if Joe jumps up as (or when) the teller finished reading the numerical results, (and before the president picked up on his part of the dialog) and says "No WAY!!!" that would "count" as a withdrawal and lead to an incomplete election. But after he is declared elected? No way! Resignation city!

Personally, I think the member could decline up until the chair had stated the question on the next item of business - similar to calling for a division or raising a Point of Order (not in the nature of a continuing breach) regarding a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup; If not, what is the point of asking him, ahead of time, if he will serve?

 

He said, in advance, he would serve, he was at the meeting, saw he was elected, and then looked around at the other winners (in horror), then resigned (in disgust).   [i would vote, quickly, to accept his resignation.]

 

I agree with those who say that he would, after looking around in disgust, decline rather than resigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, just to overdue the argument, the person is in the office just as soon as the election is "Final", which clearly is the moment the president announces or "declares" (after restating the numerical election results) that Joe is Elected to [office].  p. 418

 

Now, I suppose that if Joe jumps up as (or when) the teller finished reading the numerical results, (and before the president picked up on his part of the dialog) and says "No WAY!!!" that would "count" as a withdrawal and lead to an incomplete election.  But after he is declared elected?  No way!  Resignation city!

 

This assumes that the announcement of the election results is run properly  --  a relatively rare event in my experience.

 

 

Personally, I think the member could decline up until the chair had stated the question on the next item of business - similar to calling for a division or raising a Point of Order (not in the nature of a continuing breach) regarding a vote.

 

I concur with Mr. Martin's opinion on the timing of the declination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you are all wrong!

 

"Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one."  Thoreau, Civil Disobedience.

 

So there!

 

When someone is officially declared to be elected to an office (p. 444), how can you possibly assert, "Oh no, he's not! - he can decline if he wishes."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the member could decline up until the chair had stated the question on the next item of business -

similar to calling for a division or raising a Point of Order (not in the nature of a continuing breach) regarding a vote.

Agreed, likewise, with Josh's posting.

 

JDS ought to ponder the other parliamentary parallels.

 

* #1 - If there is election fraud, when must a member challenge the tally?

Answer: Before the chair moves on to the next agenda item.

 

* #2 - If there it to be a Reconsideration of an election, when must a member move to reconsider the election?

Answer: Before the chair moves on to the next agenda item.

 

* #3 - If an election is held by voice vote, when must a member move a Division of the Assembly?

Answer: Before the chair moves on to the next agenda item.

 

Q. So, why would an acceptance, or a declination, be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you are all wrong!

"Any man more right than his neighbors constitutes a majority of one." Thoreau, Civil Disobedience.

So there!

When someone is officially declared to be elected to an office (p. 444), how can you possibly assert, "Oh no, he's not! - he can decline if he wishes."

In most cases, a declaration of the chair is not necessarily final, and may be modified by such things as raising a Point of Order or a Division of the Assembly. Declining an election seems comparable.

* #1 - If there is election fraud, when must a member challenge the tally?

Answer: Before the chair moves on to the next agenda item.

* #2 - If there it to be a Reconsideration of an election, when must a member move to reconsider the election?

Answer: Before the chair moves on to the next agenda item.

I'm not sure about these examples. If there is evidence of fraud, this may well constitute a continuing breach. As for reconsideration, an election may be reconsidered only if an absent candidate has not yet learned of his election and has not previously consented to his candidacy. In those limited circumstances, it seems to me that reconsideration would continue to be in order until the candidate learned of his election or until the usual time limits for Reconsider had passed, whichever comes first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest electionorganizer

Many thanks to everyone for your thoughtful comments and references. The diversity of interpretations confirms our thought that this is a landmine and the nominee will have to consider the possibility, and his commitment to serve the organization, very carefully before he accepts the nomination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...