ELECTION AND INSTALLATION

[Guest MMM]

Our VP elect decided to step down BEFORE installation of officers.

Our President ELECT, without the consent of the outgoing President, took it upon himself to ask State officials of our organization what should be done about this? There is nothing in the bylaws that is clear.

What they did, without discussion with the board or general membership, is install the person who lost in the election into that position.

My understanding is that a 'loser is never a winner'. This group has constant controversy. I suggested that they should have contacted the membership and taken another vote....just to avoid more controversy. I also dont feel that the president elect should have been the person to do so.

What is proper protocol?

[Rob Elsman]

Our VP elect decided to step down BEFORE installation of officers.

Our President ELECT, without the consent of the outgoing President, took it upon himself to ask State officials of our organization what should be done about this? There is nothing in the bylaws that is clear.

What they did, without discussion with the board or general membership, is install the person who lost in the election into that position.

My understanding is that a 'loser is never a winner'. This group has constant controversy. I suggested that they should have contacted the membership and taken another vote....just to avoid more controversy. I also dont feel that the president elect should have been the person to do so.

What is proper protocol?

Your understanding "...that a 'loser is never a winner'" is correct.

[jstackpo]

But, as to "proper protocol", you have a situation that RONR doesn't cover. The book (thus avoiding all sorts of problems, including what you describe) simply states that a winner assumes office the moment his/her election is final - there is no period of "president-elect-hood", &c. between the election and a later taking of office.

So you are on your own as to how to fill the "vacancy" in the vp-elect position.

[David A Foulkes]

But, as to "proper protocol", you have a situation that RONR doesn't cover. The book (thus avoiding all sorts of problems, including what you describe) simply states that a winner assumes office the moment his/her election is final - there is no period of "president-elect-hood", &c. between the election and a later taking of office.

So you are on your own as to how to fill the "vacancy" in the vp-elect position.

Well, RONR page 441 does address the President-Elect-hood, although it defers to the bylaws to define the position and how it is handled. I would infer that Vice-President-Elect-hood would be similar, including a requirement that the bylaws address MMM's situation as well. In the absence of such detail, RONR isn't going to be much help.

[hmtcastle]

Well, RONR page 441 does address the President-Elect-hood

Having an office of President-Elect is not the same thing as being, de facto, the president-elect during the period between being elected (as President, not President-Elect) and taking office.

[jstackpo]

Right - a fair number of groups simply delay the taking of office for some period of time after the election - as does the US Govt. in the election of the President and Vice-Pres.

But, unfortunately, they don't (usually) speak to what should happen if a officer elect dies, quits, &c. in the interim period. (The US 20th amendment takes care of this problem.) There is no true vacancy in office, because the officer elect isn't actually IN an office of any sort. He is just waiting in the wings. And RONR has nothing to say about that.

A different situation, described by RONR, is when there is an actual bylaw-defined position of "President-Elect" which is usually for a whole year between the election and becoming president - sort of a trainee position.

[David A Foulkes]

Having an office of President-Elect is not the same thing as being, de facto, the president-elect during the period between being elected (as President, not President-Elect) and taking office.

Indeed. Perhaps MMM will return (before the rest of us register 20 replies to each other) and clarify which pertains to the organization.

[Josh Martin]

But, as to "proper protocol", you have a situation that RONR doesn't cover. The book (thus avoiding all sorts of problems, including what you describe) simply states that a winner assumes office the moment his/her election is final - there is no period of "president-elect-hood", &c. between the election and a later taking of office.

So you are on your own as to how to fill the "vacancy" in the vp-elect position.

It's not entirely clear to me that there is a delayed term of office. The original poster just said that the VP stepped down prior to installation, but an installation has nothing to do with when an officer takes office unless the Bylaws provide otherwise. Even if there is a delayed term of office, RONR provides that an election is complete when the winner is notified and does not immediately decline, so if an officer "steps down" after that point, it should be treated as a vacancy which exists at the time the new term begins. This would be filled by the vacancy-filling process in the organization's Bylaws, or if the Bylaws are silent, would be filled by an election by the same body which elected the position to begin with.

[Bruce Lages]

What they did, without discussion with the board or general membership, is install the person who lost in the election into that position.

Who is the "they" who installed the election loser into the VP elect position? If there really is nothing in your bylaws regarding this, or in the state-level bylaws if state-level officials were involved, then that installation may well be null and void. Then, as suggested, you would need to invoke your own vacancy-filling rules to fill the position.

[hmtcastle]

an installation has nothing to do with when an officer takes office unless the Bylaws provide otherwise.

I think it's reasonable to assume that, (just like the President of the United States) where an installation is called for, an officer is not in office until he's installed in that office (or at least until the date of installation, whether the actual ceremony takes place or not).

Who is the "they" who installed the election loser into the VP elect position?

Though it's not clear that there is a "VP elect" position.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our VP elect decided to step down BEFORE installation of officers.

Our President ELECT, without the consent of the outgoing President, took it upon himself to ask State officials of our organization what should be done about this? There is nothing in the bylaws that is clear.

What they did, without discussion with the board or general membership, is install the person who lost in the election into that position.

My understanding is that a 'loser is never a winner'. This group has constant controversy. I suggested that they should have contacted the membership and taken another vote....just to avoid more controversy. I also dont feel that the president elect should have been the person to do so.

What is proper protocol?

The president elect had no power to contact anyone on behalf of the society, and the State "officials" almost certainly have no power to install someone as Vice President in your local society--especially one who did NOT receive a majority in the election (it is not possible for 2nd place finisher to have a majority)

At the next meeting, a Point of Order should be raised that the person "inserted" into the VP position does not properly hold the office, for the above reason(s). The chair will rule, and members should be prepared to Appeal the ruling. (see RONR p. 247 ff.)

As for how to rectify the vacant position in the vice-presidency, I agree with Mr. Martin. Once informed of his election, if he did not immediately decline, the election was completed and the VP-elect took on an obligation to perform all the duties of the office of vice president, consistent with the installation rules of your society.

Although he may not yet be vice president, he has taken upon himself the duty to become vice president. One cannot "step down" from a duty without requesting and receiving permission, and that permission is granted by formally accepting a Resignation, which, technically speaking, is a request to be excused from the duties of an office.

Did the VP elect submit a resignation? Was it accepted and, if so, by whom? The body authorized to accept the resignation would be the body empowered to appoint a successor to the about-to-be-vacant position. You'll have to determine what body that is by reading your bylaws. If vacancy filling is not covered, you'll need to bring the matter to the full membership.

[Josh Martin]

I think it's reasonable to assume that, (just like the President of the United States) where an installation is called for, an officer is not in office until he's installed in that office (or at least until the date of installation, whether the actual ceremony takes place or not).

I disagree. RONR, 10th ed., pg. 430, lines 16-20 clearly state that an individual takes office immediately upon election, unless the Bylaws state a later time. Unless the Bylaws provide otherwise, an installation is just a fancy ceremony, and the fact that an installation is called for does not, in and of itself, change the time at which the individual takes office. Additionally, we don't even know if an installation is called for, or if that's just a custom of the organization.

The laws regarding the installation and term of office for the President of the United States have no bearing on the rules for the average society.

[Gary Novosielski]

Unless the Bylaws provide otherwise, an installation is just a fancy ceremony, and the fact that an installation is called for does not, in and of itself, change the time at which the individual takes office. Additionally, we don't even know if an installation is called for, or if that's just a custom of the organization.

I agree.

But even if the bylaws do specify that "officers shall take office", or that their "term shall begin", say, on the first of the month following their election, or some other unambiguous language, RONR is clear that the election is complete unless they decline immediately on being informed, which, if they are present at the meeting means at once.

Then, whether they actually in office yet or not, they certainly have been elected to office, and they have accepted all the duties that go along with that, including the duty to take office and serve their term. From the election onward, they would need to have a resignation accepted in order to be excused, which would create a vacancy of the unexpired portion of the term to which they were elected.

I think the key to whether vacancy-filling rules apply is that these rules appoint people to unexpired terms. If there is no unexpired term (such as when an officer's term is up, or is only waiting for the election of his successor) then they do not, and a normal election occurs. But after a normal election is complete, someone has an unexpired term to which they have been elected, even if they do not begin serving it at once. And the task of filling that unexpired term of office, if the person elected is unable or unwilling to do so, may fall to those so empowered by the bylaws.