Vice President

[Guest Linda Regalado]

Hi, I am the vice president of a farmers market board, it's been 4 weeks and nothing but headaches, I need to know if an email resignation, one that I sent stating my resignation will suffice or do I need to attend the next board meeting and hand in a written letter of resignation. The president sent an email to me saying he accepts it, other board members want me to reconsider.

I want to resign without making this a long drawn out process.

 

Thank you

Linda Regalado

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Nothing in Robert's Rules precludes a resignation via email, or requires a resignation to be offered in a "written letter" and/or presented in person.

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Also, the assembly would take action on the resignation, not the president alone.

[Rev Ed]

If I recall correctly, if the Board does not act on the resignation at the first Board meeting following the tendering of the resignation, then it can be assumed that the resignation has been accepted.  Of course, the easiest way to deal with this is not to show up at the meeting if you do not want to deal with people pressuring you to remain on the Board.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

If I recall correctly, if the Board does not act on the resignation at the first Board meeting following the tendering of the resignation, then it can be assumed that the resignation has been accepted.  Of course, the easiest way to deal with this is not to show up at the meeting if you do not want to deal with people pressuring you to remain on the Board.

Have there been discussions In this forum about a resignation being deemed accepted if is not acted on at the first meeting after it is submitted? There might be, but I'm not aware of it.

RONR does provide on page 291 that the duties of a position should not be abandoned until the resignation has been accepted or there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted, but RONR is silent as to what constitutes a "reasonable opportunity".

I suppose the society could conclude that that threshold is met if the proper body fails to act on it at the first meeting.

Comments? 

[Gary c Tesser]

For pity's sake, Revness, will you please let go of your preconception that board meetings are the only meetings, that is, that the membership meets only once a year; and that the board of directors (by default) generally is the entity that routinely, ongoingly, makes the decisions for the organization?

 

[Gary c Tesser]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Comments? 

Yeah, some people make that assumption.  Mostly cannibals, or college graduates.

[Rev Ed]

21 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

For pity's sake, Revness, will you please let go of your preconception that board meetings are the only meetings, that is, that the membership meets only once a year; and that the board of directors (by default) generally is the entity that routinely, ongoingly, makes the decisions for the organization?

 

1)  The original poster talked about an upcoming Board meeting.  Not a general membership meeting.

2)  Why do you assume that the general membership meets frequently?  The Board is ultimately responsible to the general membership.  But yes, within any limits found in the By-laws of a particular organization, the Board will make decisions, on an ongoing basis, on behalf of the organization.  Even if it is only to decide that the organization purchases toilet paper for the clubhouse washrooms.  That is still a decision made on behalf of the organization and is made by the Board.

Also, there is no mention in the original post that mentions the general membership having anything to do with handling resignations.  How am I supposed to answer the question other than based on the information provided?  I guess I am supposed to assume that the original poster does not know anything about how the organization operates!

[Guest Nancy N.]

6 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

1)  The original poster talked about an upcoming Board meeting.  Not a general membership meeting.

Yeah, but we have no grounds to assume that it is actually a matter for the board; and if you're giving advice, you might suggest that the OP double-check.

 

6 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

2)  Why do you assume that the general membership meets frequently?

I Do Not.  I just don't assume that they do; I'm not assuming whether they do or don't, either way; and I'm asking you to stop making that assumption based on no evidence.I guess I am supposed to assume that the original poster does not know anything about how the organization operates!

6 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Also, there is no mention in the original post that mentions the general membership having anything to do with handling resignations.

But Revness, that's the RONR default!  Do you need me to quote you citations on this??!?

 

6 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

I guess I am supposed to assume that the original poster does not know anything about how the organization operates!

C'mon, Revness, would that actually be rare??!?  (Pace, Guest Linda Regalado.  )

[Guest Nancy N.]

6 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

I guess I am supposed to assume that the original poster does not know anything about how the organization operates!

No, DON'T assume that!  Don't assume ANYTHING!  But at least allow for, and mention diplomatically, and maybe ask, since you bloody well have read on this discussion forum inquiries from people who say they are looking for help since they have no experience with parliamentary procedure, and have not read (and, for that matter, not rarely are obstructed from) reading their organization's bylaws, ramifications if that's what's so!

Edness (or Revness, I forget which is which)!  You're a Canadian!  Act like one!

[Rev Ed]

4 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

But at least allow for, and mention diplomatically, and maybe ask, since you bloody well have read on this discussion forum inquiries from people who say they are looking for help since they have no experience with parliamentary procedure, and have not read (and, for that matter, not rarely are obstructed from) reading their organization's bylaws, ramifications if that's what's so!

Yes, but if someone asks a question, and makes no comment on whether or not they know anything about parliamentary procedure, that it is simply not a question on a specific issue.   Yes, it's easy to ask or say "Based on what you have said, my response is as follows ...", but why should I always do that.  Sometimes people just want an answer to a question.

Quote

Edness (or Revness, I forget which is which)!  You're a Canadian!  Act like one!

Well, then why do others seem to have the need to consistently take a strip off my back for trying to help?  Instead of attacking me, why not simply answer the question asked by the original post?  This has occurred once to many times on this forum, and I am starting to take it personally.  Others do not seem to get treated the same way.

[Richard Brown]

I see nothing wrong with Rev Ed's response to the original question based on the information provided, although I do question whether failure of the society to act on a resignation at the first opportunity constitutes automatic acceptance. I don't know that first opportunity and reasonable opportunity are necessarily synonymous. I was hoping some of our regular posters would comment on that particular issue.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

6 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

No, DON'T assume that!  Don't assume ANYTHING!  But at least allow for, and mention diplomatically, and maybe ask, since you bloody well have read on this discussion forum inquiries from people who say they are looking for help since they have no experience with parliamentary procedure, and have not read (and, for that matter, not rarely are obstructed from) reading their organization's bylaws, ramifications if that's what's so!

Edness (or Revness, I forget which is which)!  You're a Canadian!  Act like one!

Why are you shouting? Do you have trouble getting people to pay attention to you?

[Rev Ed]

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

although I do question whether failure of the society to act on a resignation at the first opportunity constitutes automatic acceptance. I don't know that first opportunity and reasonable opportunity are necessarily synonymous.

I thought this was discussed on this forum at some point and that was the conclusion.  Of course, I am willing to be told that the appropriate group (the Board, the general membership, the President of the organization, or whoever based on the By-laws) has to specifically act on the resignation and that any number of meetings do not matter.

[Gary c Tesser]

13 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Why are you shouting?

(I was worked up.  That's what shouting is for.  And I only capitalized two words.  Rev Ed is so capable of much more than this, so when he falls back on habits that I, and others, have gently addressed him on (or, OK, taken him to task, or even taken a strip off his back, but really, I don't think it often came to that), I get exasperated.  And for pity's sake, he's a canad.  He should know better.)

[Gary c Tesser]

17 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I see nothing wrong with Rev Ed's response to the original question based on the information provided,

No, of course not:  But I hold Rev Ed to a higher standard.  Which he has, over and over again, exemplarily earned.

_______

N. B. That can be taken as a compliment.  My mother, who had much more experience teaching professionally than I did (i.e., decades, compared to zero), used to complain that I was a monstrously hard marker.

... She ... um.

Edited February 26, 2017 at 10:52 AM by Gary c Tesser
I forget, it's been hours.

[Gary c Tesser]

On 2/23/2017 at 2:50 PM, Guest Linda Regalado said:

Hi, I am the vice president of a farmers market board, it's been 4 weeks and nothing but headaches, I need to know if an email resignation, one that I sent stating my resignation will suffice or do I need to attend the next board meeting and hand in a written letter of resignation. The president sent an email to me saying he accepts it, other board members want me to reconsider.

I want to resign without making this a long drawn out process.

 

Thank you

Linda Regalado

Guest Linda Regalado, given all the digressions, can we take it that we have told you what you want to know?

[Rev Ed]

9 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

(I was worked up.  That's what shouting is for.  And I only capitalized two words.  Rev Ed is so capable of much more than this, so when he falls back on habits that I, and others, have gently addressed him on (or, OK, taken him to task, or even taken a strip off his back, but really, I don't think it often came to that), I get exasperated.  And for pity's sake, he's a canad.  He should know better.)

Gary, I am sorry if I over-reacted.  At times it gets annoying to be told off, even gently, when I was only trying to help.  Maybe I should remember to add the "Based on what you have told us ..." or lines to that effect if a lot of detail is not provided, but I normally assume that people know something or else they would provide more information.  For example, I have a basic understanding of RONR (I admit I am still learning, and do not claim to know everything), so when I have asked a question, it's that issue I need to know about - and if it's about an organization, I do know the By-laws.  I guess I expect to think the same way, if they need to know more information then they would say such.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

9 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

(I was worked up.  That's what shouting is for.  And I only capitalized two words.  Rev Ed is so capable of much more than this, so when he falls back on habits that I, and others, have gently addressed him on (or, OK, taken him to task, or even taken a strip off his back, but really, I don't think it often came to that), I get exasperated.  And for pity's sake, he's a canad.  He should know better.)

So "Nancy N." is your sock puppet? Does this board go in for that sort of thing?