Elected Officer steps down at election

[Guest Beth Hart]

In our club, we just had our yearly election, the results were read and one newly elected officer, immediatly decided to step down (no notice previously given).

Our by-laws state that if someone steps down from their position, that the board will select a new candidate and present this to the general membership for approval.

But, once this person stepped down, the defeated canidate (who was a 2011 officer) immediatly said she would take the position. And our President announced this, after at least half of the membership had left the party. The President said since the election was between these two people, it would be allowed.

I do NOT feel this is right, could anyone offer assistance?

Thank you,

Beth Hart

[Guest Edgar]

Our by-laws state that if someone steps down from their position, that the board will select a new candidate and present this to the general membership for approval.

Then that's what should happen, regardless of what the runner-up thinks.

But did the newly-elected officer really "step down" (i.e. resign) or did he simply decline the job when he found out he had won.

[jstackpo]

You're right, it's not right.

Near as I can tell (without having been there) you have an "incomplete election" on your hands, and the way to complete it is to do it again (but only for the offices that were not elected first time around). And when you redo the election, do it with ALL the original candidates plus more nominations, if a majority wishes to reopen the floor.

The loser does NOT "automatically" bubble up into the abandonded position - he/she didn't get a majority in favor, perhaps for very good reasons.

[Trina]

Since the person never accepted the position, your vacancy-filling procedures don't kick in -- what you have is technically called an incomplete election.

In describing the time at which an election takes effect, RONR says:

'An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline... If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 444 ll. 18-25, excerpts).

So, your organization should complete the election. As it happens, this isn't all that different than what you describe for your vacancy-filling ('if someone steps down from their position') provisions, except that the board shouldn't play any special part in selecting the nominees -- the membership needs to complete the election process.

You are quite right in your feeling that the process you witnessed was wrong.

[Guest Guest]

The elected officer stepped down. There had been ugliness in the election process and she decided she did not want to continue to be on the board.

[Guest Beth Hart]

Thank you for your replies.

Trina - would you say that additional nominations could then be taken, or would the original ballot be used, in which case, at that time, the only other available name would be the person who lost?

[Trina]

The elected officer stepped down. There had been ugliness in the election process and she decided she did not want to continue to be on the board.

Are you sure there was a period of time (however brief) during which this person held office? Or did she decline as soon as the election results were announced? That would determine whether the organization should follow its vacancy-filling procedures, or whether the election is actually incomplete.

In either case it sounds as though membership approval (i.e. a vote) will be needed -- the runner-up does not automatically move into the office, no matter what the president announced.

[Trina]

Thank you for your replies.

Trina - would you say that additional nominations could then be taken, or would the original ballot be used, in which case, at that time, the only other available name would be the person who lost?

The assembly can vote to re-open nominations (majority vote required).

[Guest Beth Hart]

She stepped down within minutes of announcing she won. My biggest question now, could/should the nomination be re-opened, or do we need to stick to the original ballot, which, with only 1 name left, would be the same as the defeated person claiming office?

[jstackpo]

A majority decides whether to (re)open nominations.

But...

Did she herself "announce" that she won? If so, it sounds like she was indeed in office for those few minutes, and then resigned. That puts you in your "vacancy filling" set of rules, not an incomplete election.

But the facts are what matter, and I wasn't there.

[Guest Beth Hart]

Just found out, the officer accepted, then a few minutes later asked the President if she could resign the position and let the other person have the seat.

[jstackpo]

She can (could) resign, but NOT "let the other person have the seat".

That choice is up to the voters, not to the reluctant winner.

[Guest Edgar]

Just found out, the officer accepted, then a few minutes later asked the President if she could resign the position and let the other person have the seat.

Well by now I hope you know that's not how it works.

[Guest Mari]

Since the By-Laws state that the Board will select a new candidate and there are six remaining Board members which will more than likely vote three one way and three the other for another candidate, how would a tie be broken?

[George Mervosh]

Since the By-Laws state that the Board will select a new candidate and there are six remaining Board members which will more than likely vote three one way and three the other for another candidate, how would a tie be broken?

It's not. You keep voting until someone receives a majority of the votes cast.

[Tim Wynn]

All this sounds a lot like the candidate declined the election, and I find it to be a little contrary to good parliamentary sense to insinuate that an individual can accept a position and then resign in the next breath, or that a person who waits a few minutes has missed his opportunity to decline the election, simply on the grounds that it could be argued that the response was not immediate.

I Love to stick by the letter of the rules as much as the next nut, but when an assembly has made all the necessary preparations for an election and is perfectly capable of validly making its choice to fill an office, inside a meeting for that purpose, I don't see that there is any merit in deferring to a vacancy-filling provision that is designed to allow action to be taken between such election meetings. The assembly should have proceeded to make the choice it came to the meeting to make.

[Weldon Merritt]

The assembly should have proceeded to make the choice it came to the meeting to make.

I concur. But since they did not do that, they should do it at the next opportunity.

[Bruce Lages]

I am fully in agreement with Tim's viewpoint. To me, another important consideration here (especially if guest Mari is talking about the same situation as guest Beth) is when the vacancy-filling procedure takes the selection of the office holder out of the membership's hands and gives it to the board. When such a short time elapses between accepting and then declining the office (guest Beth's heading reads 'elected officer steps down at election'), it seems grossly unfair from a parliamentiary perspective to deny the membership their right to select another candidate by declaring a vacancy instead of an incomplete election..

[Guest Mari]

Yes, Beth and I are talking about the same election. The election had concluded for about 10-15 minutes and the majority of the membership had left or was in the process of leaving after the election results were read. The elected officer was "encouraged" by the non-winner to step down so she could take the seat.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, Beth and I are talking about the same election. The election had concluded for about 10-15 minutes and the majority of the membership had left or was in the process of leaving after the election results were read. The elected officer was "encouraged" by the non-winner to step down so she could take the seat.

Begins to sound more like a vacancy due to resignation to me.

[Tim Wynn]

Yes, Beth and I are talking about the same election. The election had concluded for about 10-15 minutes and the majority of the membership had left or was in the process of leaving after the election results were read. The elected officer was "encouraged" by the non-winner to step down so she could take the seat.

In this particular case, the important point, which has already been made by others, is that the second person on that ballot was not elected to the office.

[Gary Novosielski]

Whether this is an incomplete election or a vacancy depends upon whether the office was declined "immediately". I would argue that a few minutes later in the same meeting would qualify as immediate.

Whether a substantial number of people left is of no importance, as long as a quorum was still present. People who leave before the meeting is adjourned have themselves to blame for missing what happened.

And in any case, a person who declines, or resigns, has no right to "turn over" the office to someone else. In particular, the candidate who came in second could not possibly have received a majority of the votes cast and so could not be elected without a new round of balloting.

Nominations can be re-opened if (a majority of) the group wishes to do so.