Nomination following resignation of vice-president

[Guest George]

At our annual election of officers for 2016 a problem arose where the incumbent vice-president exhibited unbecoming conduct.  After the 2016 election was held, and he was re-elected, he subsequently sent a letter of resignation to the board which was accepted and an interim vice-president was installed by the board (iaw our by-laws).  We will be having an election for this position at our next general meeting (again iaw our by-laws).  The question comes up can the person that resigned from this position be nominated for the position that he resigned from.  The second part of this question is his resignation effective for both the current year and the year that he was newly elected for.

[Richard Brown]

In the order you asked:

 

1.  Nothing in RONR prohibits him from being nominated for and elected to the position from which he resigned.

 

2.  His resignation is unquestionably effective for the current year.  Whether it is also effective for his new term which has not yet started is a bit more problematic and probably depends on how your board treated the resignation and whether there was anything in the resignation indicating that he was resigning only from the current term.  I believe your board or the general membership will have the final say on that by specifying whether it applies only to the current term or to the new term as well.  All of the circumstances surrounding the resignation will have to be considered.

 

I am personally inclined to take the position that the resignation is effective for both the current term and the new term, but others may disagree.   It is ultimately up to your organization, not to us in the forum, to decide that issue.  Stay tuned.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Q1. Can the person that resigned from this position be nominated for the position that he resigned from?

Q2. Is his resignation effective for both the current year and the year that he was newly elected for?

A1.) "Nominated"? -- Yes.

There is no parliamentary stigma which prevents a member who resigned (or who was suspended, or even who was expelled!) from being nominated, and from being elected.

A2.) "Effective"? -- I am not sure of your timeline.

You cannot resign from an office which you do not hold.

So any letter of resignation won't be meaningful for an UPCOMING election.

Example:

IF your election is in January, and

IF your defined terms-of-office run from January to December,

THEN any resignation from FEB. thru NOV. will only apply to the office-holder who is in office, and

thus truncates that term-of-office for that office-holder; and

thus allows the organization to fill the vacancy for 1 month to 11 months (to fulfill the unfinished term of office).

That is, a November resignation by your Mr. Ousted does not prevent Mr. Ousted from successfully being nominated and elected two months later at your annual meeting in January.

 

If he is requesting that he not be nominated/elected, then that is a different issue.

[Richard Brown]

A2.) "Effective"? -- I am not sure of your timeline.

You cannot resign from an office which you do not hold.

So any letter of resignation won't be meaningful for an UPCOMING election.

Kim, guest George says in his initial post that the elections for next year's terms have already taken place.  This person was re-elected vice president at the November meeting for a second term that commences on a future date.  He has already been elected.  The question is whether his resignation is effective only for the current term or if it is also effective for the future term to which he has already been elected.

[Guest George]

Wouldn't this nomination be construed as trying to rescind his/her already approved resignation, which I believe is contrary to the rules of order?  This special election would not have been held nor an interim VP named had he/she not tendered their resignation.

[Dan Honemann]

Wouldn't this nomination be construed as trying to rescind his/her already approved resignation, which I believe is contrary to the rules of order?  This special election would not have been held nor an interim VP named had he/she not tendered their resignation.

 

No.

[Josh Martin]

I believe your board or the general membership will have the final say on that by specifying whether it applies only to the current term or to the new term as well.

Really? The resigning member doesn't have any say in the matter?

[Richard Brown]

Really? The resigning member doesn't have any say in the matter?

Of course he does, but I believe the organization itself (either its board or its membership) will have the FINAL say on the matter.

 

Here is my entire statement on that issue.  Note the last sentence:  "His resignation is unquestionably effective for the current year.  Whether it is also effective for his new term which has not yet started is a bit more problematic and probably depends on how your board treated the resignation and whether there was anything in the resignation indicating that he was resigning only from the current term.  I believe your board or the general membership will have the final say on that by specifying whether it applies only to the current term or to the new term as well.  All of the circumstances surrounding the resignation will have to be considered."

 

If it boils down to a question of him saying he resigned only from the current term and the president and the board believe he resigned from both terms, I still maintain that the society will have the final say on the matter.... perhaps through an appeal from a ruling of the chair...  unless he wants to take them to court. 

[George Mervosh]

If it boils down to a question of him saying he resigned only from the current term and the president and the board believe he resigned from both terms, I still maintain that the society will have the final say on the matter.... perhaps through an appeal from a ruling of the chair...  unless he wants to take them to court. 

 

How can the board accept something that wasn't offered?

[Richard Brown]

How can the board accept something that wasn't offered?

Because it is the board that will ultimately have to interpret the document and determine what was offered.  If it gets into a "he said, they said", the board will win.  His statement of what he intended the document to do might be persuasive, but it won't be controlling.  Hopefully, it won't get to that and they will all come to an agreement as to which term(s) he was resigning from.

[George Mervosh]

Because it is the board that will ultimately have to interpret the document and determine what was offered.  If it gets into a "he said, they said", the board will win.  His statement of what he intended the document to do might be persuasive, but it won't be controlling.  Hopefully, it won't get to that and they will all come to an agreement as to which term(s) he was resigning from.

 

It has to be controlling.  The board simply cannot accept something that was not offered.  

 

The chair should never put to a vote any motion when it is unclear exactly what it is they are to vote on. The only way to do that is to find out exactly what was offered.

 

 

{materially edited with example removed}

[Josh Martin]

Of course he does, but I believe the organization itself (either its board or its membership) will have the FINAL say on the matter.

 

Here is my entire statement on that issue.  Note the last sentence:  "His resignation is unquestionably effective for the current year.  Whether it is also effective for his new term which has not yet started is a bit more problematic and probably depends on how your board treated the resignation and whether there was anything in the resignation indicating that he was resigning only from the current term.  I believe your board or the general membership will have the final say on that by specifying whether it applies only to the current term or to the new term as well.  All of the circumstances surrounding the resignation will have to be considered."

 

If it boils down to a question of him saying he resigned only from the current term and the president and the board believe he resigned from both terms, I still maintain that the society will have the final say on the matter.... perhaps through an appeal from a ruling of the chair...  unless he wants to take them to court.

I would take the opposite position. It seems to me that if there is any ambiguity on this point, the member who offered the resignation has the final say on the matter. A resignation is a voluntary act, and the member cannot be forced out of a position by the society simply interpreting his resignation to be broader than what he intended.

[Guest]

It is believed that he/she intended to resign from both the current year and the new year as he/she wouldn't have said he was going to try and be nominated for the special election.  This question was raised by one board member only after the rumor of the person being nominated to run on the special election.  The real heart of the matter is there a way to prevent the nomination as this may result in his/her expulsion from the club to prevent it.  Yes the act could warrant expulsion but due to past service and previous board membership it is desired to keep this person as a member just not on next years board. 

Also, as a side note, it seems really odd that a resignation and then a renomination wouldn't be construed as trying to avoid the FAQ that says "A resignation is a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. It may be withdrawn in the same manner as any motion may be withdrawn - that is to say, before the proposed resignation has been placed before the assembly by the chair stating the question on its acceptance, it may be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, but it may not be withdrawn without permission of the assembly once it has been placed before the assembly for its approval."  The resignation was tendered, placed in front of the board, accepted by the board and an interim VP was named (iaw bylaws) and a special election scheduled (iaw bylaws).  If this doesn't constitute "placed before the assembly", then what does?

[jstackpo]

From what you wrote in the last two sentences of the last (large) paragraph, everything seems clear.  The VP is now out of office - the one that the person was then holding.   But that is all.  You can't resign "in advance" of possibly being elected to an office. (You could announce that you will refuse to serve if elected, but that isn't a "resignation".) 

But there is no proper way to prevent the same person being nominated to run in the special election.  Or being elected back into the VP position.  That is up to the voters.

[D_K]

17 minutes ago, Guest said:

If this doesn't constitute "placed before the assembly", then what does?

The resignation was placed before the assembly, so it cannot be withdrawn. However, running for the office that one recently resigned from is not the same as withdrawing or rescinding the resignation. It may be odd, but the new election is a brand new question for the assembly.  The assembly gets to choose its officers, and if they want to pick the person who recently quit, that is their prerogative.

Ultimately, there is no way to prevent the nomination or election of a person without disciplinary proceedings unless your bylaws say otherwise.

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, jstackpo said:

From what you wrote in the last two sentences of the last (large) paragraph, everything seems clear.  The VP is now out of office - the one that the person was then holding.   But that is all.  You can't resign "in advance" of possibly being elected to an office. (You could announce that you will refuse to serve if elected, but that isn't a "resignation".)

I don't think this is an issue of "possibly" being elected. My understanding is that the Vice President has already been elected to another term, but the new term has not yet begun, and there is apparently some ambiguity as to which term(s) he intended to resign from. I am inclined to agree with the OP that he intended to resign from both, based on the facts provided, although the simplest solution to this problem is to ask the member about it.

[Richard Brown]

On 12/9/2015 at 8:24 PM, jstackpo said:

From what you wrote in the last two sentences of the last (large) paragraph, everything seems clear.  The VP is now out of office - the one that the person was then holding.   But that is all.  You can't resign "in advance" of possibly being elected to an office. (You could announce that you will refuse to serve if elected, but that isn't a "resignation".) . . . .

 

On 12/9/2015 at 1:26 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't think this is an issue of "possibly" being elected. My understanding is that the Vice President has already been elected to another term, but the new term has not yet begun, and there is apparently some ambiguity as to which term(s) he intended to resign from. . . .

I agree with Josh.  It seems clear to me that the member has already been elected to the new term which has not yet begun and that the question is which term(s) he intended to resign from.