Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Newly elected officer declines


Guest Roger

Recommended Posts

At the annual meeting of our not-for-profit organization, an individual was nominated for a board position (co-chairman) and subsequently elected, by majority vote, over another individual who had also been nominated. The individual who was elected was not at the meeting, and was not reachable by phone. Subsequent to that meeting, and that vote, the individual elected was notified of the results and did not immediately decline. After several days of consideration, the elected individual has submitted his resignation in the form of a "declining the office". As the individual who was not elected will take the stance that the office should now go to him, I am looking for guidance that there has to be a formal election to fill this vacancy and that we cannot simply accept the un-elected candidate.

Thanks-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking for guidance that there has to be a formal election to fill this vacancy . . .

I'm not so sure. Once the winner was notified and did not immediately decline, the election was complete. If he later resigns you have a vacancy that could be filled by any mid-term vacancy-filling procedures your bylaws might provide. If they don't then, yes, you'll need to hold another election.

But, as Mr. Mervosh suggested, stay tuned. RONR doesn't anticipate any delay between the time a candidate accepts an office and the time he takes office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would concur that this is more of a resignation than declining to serve - unless the election results literally came out of nowhere - if the person did not know that he was nominated, or would be nominated, the news about his election would be a complete shock and thus a case could be made that he coudn't give an accurate response immediately.

However, just because the runner up thinks this now makes him elected does not make this so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer George's initial question, If the (elected) member had been present and declined at that point, we would have had to hold another election as the losing candidate did not have "a majority vote of the members present".

Well, that wasn't really his question (which, in any event, was rhetorical) but, yes, that's essentially correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is also being left out is that there is a difference in that the person was not there to accept nomination and there is a discrepancy in that one person said he will accept and another person knew he did not want it, and that objection was made at the time of the nomination. There was also after the vote a decision made by the floor that we would wait until contact was made with this individual to see if he wanted the position and if not the floor (members) were okay with the runner up holding the position, there was no objection from the chair who also agreed with this decision. Also, Can someone be nominated without being present? If so how does that person accept nomination? And how can it be considered a resignation if he never accepted the position. thats like quitting a job that you get before even accepting the job. Also the time frame delay in the rejection of the position was due to the fact that the elected person was away on business during the hurricane working at an emergency operations center and wasn’t able to respond. There were only 2 people brought up for nomination at that time so if it was declined or the nomination wasn’t accepted majority vote would then go to the second candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nominations do not need to be accepted by the nominee to be valid. The nomination 'belongs' to the person making it - this is in part why RONR does not require a second for a nomination and why nominations are not approved by the assembly. What the nominee can do is inform the assembly that he or she will decline the position if elected, which should be sufficient warning to the voters that maybe voting for someone else might be wise. So, in your case it is perfectly valid to nominate someone who is not present, but it also makes sense to try to secure a committment from the nominee that he will serve if elected, before the election takes place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know some people, knowing they will be absent, will drop off a note to a member attending the meeting indicating that if elected they would accept election. Personally, I would hesitate to nominate an absent member if I did not have such assurance in advance, but it is also a way to try and elect either a compromise candidate or otherwise stop an unpopular member from being elected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is also being left out is that there is a difference in that the person was not there to accept nomination and there is a discrepancy in that one person said he will accept and another person knew he did not want it, and that objection was made at the time of the nomination. There was also after the vote a decision made by the floor that we would wait until contact was made with this individual to see if he wanted the position and if not the floor (members) were okay with the runner up holding the position, there was no objection from the chair who also agreed with this decision. Also, Can someone be nominated without being present? If so how does that person accept nomination?

How exactly was this provisional decision made? Was a motion made and voted upon by the assembly? If so, what was the wording of the motion?

And how can it be considered a resignation if he never accepted the position. thats like quitting a job that you get before even accepting the job. Also the time frame delay in the rejection of the position was due to the fact that the elected person was away on business during the hurricane working at an emergency operations center and wasn’t able to respond. There were only 2 people brought up for nomination at that time so if it was declined or the nomination wasn’t accepted majority vote would then go to the second candidate.

The original poster said that the elected person was notified (I assumed this implied direct in-person communication), and did not decline the position until several days later. Is that inaccurate? Or did 'notified' here mean something like sending off an e-mail or leaving a voice mail message, which the elected person possibly did not even see for several days?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was an informal decsion made by the body.

As to the second question they were phone conversations. He was unable to decline the position becasue the person was working within an IMAT team in Nassau county durign the hurricane. So I would assume there were bigger issues he was dealing with other then a vote for an elceted postion for a SAR council. Also there was a difference in fact of what the intentions of the person elected had said to two different people. With one he said he would think of taking the nomination and/or position and to the other person he said he did not either the nomination or position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was also after the vote a decision made by the floor that we would wait until contact was made with this individual to see if he wanted the position and if not the floor (members) were okay with the runner up holding the position, there was no objection from the chair who also agreed with this decision.

How exactly was this provisional decision made?

It was an informal decsion made by the body.

I think it bears noting that this "decision" carries no weight as far as RONR is concerned, assuming the other member did not receive a majority of votes cast, as is apparently the case. "A plurality that is not a majority never ... elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted." (RONR 11th ed., p. 405 ll. 2-4)

As to the second question they were phone conversations.

What exactly does this mean, in particular with regards to the plural use of conversations? How many phone calls were there? Was the elected member actually contacted directly on the phone, and told that he had been elected? What was his response to that in the initial phone call? Did he ask for time to consider this and return the call?

You mention that he had indicated to at least one other member that he desired neither to be nominated or elected, so even in light of his circumstances at the time (manning an emergency center), it would seem likely that he'd be able to very easily and quickly say "no thanks, I decline" and get off the phone without much delay. RONR states that when a person is elected but not present at the election meeting, and has not previously consented to his candidacy, the election is completed when he is notified, "provided that he does not immediately decline." (RONR 11th ed., p. 444 ll. 22-23, emphasis added) I think if we are to follow the rules of RONR, it sounds like he was elected, and then subsequently resigned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the annual meeting of our not-for-profit organization, an individual was nominated for a board position (co-chairman) and subsequently elected, by majority vote, over another individual who had also been nominated. The individual who was elected was not at the meeting, and was not reachable by phone. Subsequent to that meeting, and that vote, the individual elected was notified of the results and did not immediately decline. After several days of consideration, the elected individual has submitted his resignation in the form of a "declining the office". As the individual who was not elected will take the stance that the office should now go to him, I am looking for guidance that there has to be a formal election to fill this vacancy and that we cannot simply accept the un-elected candidate.

Thanks-

What is also being left out is that there is a difference in that the person was not there to accept nomination and there is a discrepancy in that one person said he will accept and another person knew he did not want it, and that objection was made at the time of the nomination. There was also after the vote a decision made by the floor that we would wait until contact was made with this individual to see if he wanted the position and if not the floor (members) were okay with the runner up holding the position, there was no objection from the chair who also agreed with this decision. Also, Can someone be nominated without being present? If so how does that person accept nomination? And how can it be considered a resignation if he never accepted the position. thats like quitting a job that you get before even accepting the job. Also the time frame delay in the rejection of the position was due to the fact that the elected person was away on business during the hurricane working at an emergency operations center and wasn’t able to respond. There were only 2 people brought up for nomination at that time so if it was declined or the nomination wasn’t accepted majority vote would then go to the second candidate.

It seems fairly clear that you (sarmember) and the original poster are not the same person, given these quite different opinions about what should happen next. In general, this forum works best if people start their own threads when presenting different points of view about the same situation (the facts presented often are radically different from one organization member to another). However, Guest_Roger and sarmember actually seem to agree (so far) to many of the same basic facts about the situation, so maybe it's worth proceeding.

It was an informal decsion made by the body.

I would be uncomfortable with the idea of a formal (clearly stated and voted upon) motion to provisionally elect a back-up candidate, with the election to take effect only if the assembly's first choice declines. RONR doesn't describe such a form of election; however, if the motion is clearly stated and understood, I'm inclined to think it could be valid. I'm curious what other posters have to say about this concept (my inclination may be totally off base).

In any case, since this was an 'informal decision' (not a formal and clearly stated motion that was voted upon) I think it's that much less likely to be proper and binding. Witness Roger's (presumably also a member) quite different view of the situation.

As to the second question they were phone conversations. He was unable to decline the position becasue the person was working within an IMAT team in Nassau county durign the hurricane. So I would assume there were bigger issues he was dealing with other then a vote for an elceted postion for a SAR council. Also there was a difference in fact of what the intentions of the person elected had said to two different people. With one he said he would think of taking the nomination and/or position and to the other person he said he did not either the nomination or position.

All of this certainly sounds like extenuating circumstances, and one could imagine the elected person not being willing/able to give his election a moment's thought when notified of it. However, RONR clearly states that if a candidate is absent at the time of election and has not consented to his candidacy, 'the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 444 ll. 21-23). If there were 'phone conversations' that certainly implies that the elected person was notified directly, and did not immediately decline. By a strict reading of RONR, that would mean there is now a vacancy in the office. The membership might argue over what the word 'immediately' means, and whether its meaning is different under these circumstances. However, any such argument would have to take place at a meeting of the membership in order to be parliamentarily significant.

Is there any chance of calling another meeting of the membership to deal with the situation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems fairly clear that you (sarmember) and the original poster are not the same person, given these quite different opinions about what should happen next.

And here I thought that Guest_Roger became sarmember (and he was simply relating the two prevailing opinions among the members).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here I thought that Guest_Roger became sarmember (and he was simply relating the two prevailing opinions among the members).

Given that sarmember starts his/her first post with

What is also being left out is that...

I guessed otherwise. Hopefully Roger and/or sarmember will clarify if they are the same person (with unusual dedication to presenting both sides of the question), or two different people :) .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no we are two different people.

What I am not sure of is who needs to get teh call right after the vote? The runner up was on the phone with the elected person and he had said that he didnt want to position, but he was not the chair. so the bigger question is who needs to have the phone conversation right after the vote, the chair or just anyone, along with the peson who was elected? And how do you believe either side it is all hear say at that point. the only person who can clear this up is th eperson elected as to what happened on the phone calls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no we are two different people.

What I am not sure of is who needs to get teh call right after the vote? The runner up was on the phone with the elected person and he had said that he didnt want to position, but he was not the chair. so the bigger question is who needs to have the phone conversation right after the vote, the chair or just anyone, along with the peson who was elected? And how do you believe either side it is all hear say at that point. the only person who can clear this up is th eperson elected as to what happened on the phone calls.

RONR doesn't say explicitly in the section on this, but since an election is not final until the chair announces the result, I'd put my money on the chair/president making that phone call, in the absence of any rule or decision of the assembly to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no we are two different people.

What I am not sure of is who needs to get teh call right after the vote? The runner up was on the phone with the elected person and he had said that he didnt want to position, but he was not the chair. so the bigger question is who needs to have the phone conversation right after the vote, the chair or just anyone, along with the peson who was elected? And how do you believe either side it is all hear say at that point. the only person who can clear this up is th eperson elected as to what happened on the phone calls.

This is Guest Roger's thread, and he is entitled to his own statement of facts. If you would like to have questions answered based upon your statement of facts, you need to start your own thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry for the absence from this thread. I appreciate everyone's input. As you see, there is some confusion over what differnet people heard and saw, but I beleive the bottom line in either case, is that a totally new election is called for. Whether it should have occurred at the meeting itself, or after the winner of the election was notified by the Chairman can be argued, and probably never resolved, but a new election is called for. RONR for either scenario, calls for a totally new election and not the selection of the non-winning candidate. Would that be the concensus of the forum group?

I also recognize that our by-laws need to be amended to prevent future occurrences such as this. The organization has been around since 1974 and this is the first time such a situation has arisen.

Thanks for your guidance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for the absence from this thread. I appreciate everyone's input. As you see, there is some confusion over what differnet people heard and saw, but I beleive the bottom line in either case, is that a totally new election is called for. Whether it should have occurred at the meeting itself, or after the winner of the election was notified by the Chairman can be argued, and probably never resolved, but a new election is called for. RONR for either scenario, calls for a totally new election and not the selection of the non-winning candidate. Would that be the concensus of the forum group?

I also recognize that our by-laws need to be amended to prevent future occurrences such as this. The organization has been around since 1974 and this is the first time such a situation has arisen.

Thanks for your guidance.

In one scenario, you have a complete election with a resignation several days later, creating a vacancy in that office. Examination of your bylaws will determine how this vacancy is to be filled.

In another scenario, you have an candidate declining the office, which creates an incomplete election, requiring further balloting.

NEITHER SCENARIO would elect an individual to office based on the fact that he received the second highest number of votes for the office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...