Vice chair not interested in presiding over meeting

[sMargaret]

Our chair will be absent for several meetings, which may result in an eventual resignation. The vice chair has stated that he is not interested in carrying out the duties of the chair. I've got the appropriate section of RONR - "Temporary Occupants of the Chair" - for what happens next (secretary calls meeting, chair pro tem, etc), but I'm stuck on how to characterize the actions of the vice chair, both for fellow members and for the minutes.

Are they deemed to have resigned? Stepping aside? Don't consider themselves qualified? Is there some better way of putting it?

Oddly enough, the person would like to continue in their role, but just not, um, performing the duties of the role.

thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

Our chair will be absent for several meetings, which may result in an eventual resignation. The vice chair has stated that he is not interested in carrying out the duties of the chair. I've got the appropriate section of RONR - "Temporary Occupants of the Chair" - for what happens next (secretary calls meeting, chair pro tem, etc), but I'm stuck on how to characterize the actions of the vice chair, both for fellow members and for the minutes.

Are they deemed to have resigned? Stepping aside? Don't consider themselves qualified? Is there some better way of putting it?

Oddly enough, the person would like to continue in their role, but just not, um, performing the duties of the role.

thanks!

That would be called "dereliction of duty". (And pretty strong grounds for disciplinary action, since it is THE main duty of the VP.)

[dglynch]

There would be no real need to "characterize" the action: the minutes would simply say that the secretary called the meeting to order, and Mr. A was elected as chairman pro tem.

Privately, outside the meeting, or during a disciplinary proceeding against the VP, it might be appropriate to characterize his actions as a dereliction of duty.

[Rob Elsman]

The vice chairman, unless legitmately impeded, is guilty of dereliction of duty if he does not preside in the absence of the chairman. There are several reasons why the vice chairman might be legitimately impeded, but "...not interested in carrying out the duties of the chair" is not one of them, since he, in effect, promised to perform this duty when he stood for election and agreed to accept the office when he won.

[Rev Ed]

Well, I would read Chapter XX of RONR. The Vice Chair should be told, politiely, that he/she should either resign or the organization will have no other option but to remove the person from his/her position.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I would read Chapter XX of RONR. However, if the Vice Chair refuses to perform the duties of Chair, then one could claim that the Vice Chair has resigned if he/she refuses to perform the duties for which he/she was elected. Although Chapter 20 is probably a better idea.

A resignation is a "request to be excused" from a duty. I don't think that's the same thing as just not doing it without being excused. So it would not be appropriate to treat this as a resignation.

[J. J.]

Well, I would read Chapter XX of RONR. The Vice Chair should be told, politiely, that he/she should either resign or the organization will have no other option but to remove the person from his/her position.

They would have the option of continuing to elect a chair pro tem.