traditional practice in conflict with RROO. Which prevails?

[Guest Perry Woods]

Our organizations bylaws do not specifically deal with resignations. It has never been deemed an issue that needed to be spelled out. By laws state that Robert's Rules guide what not mentioned.

In the 200 plus year history of our organization, a political party, there has never been a vote to accept the resignation of a party officer. This requirement would put a tremendous burden in all our operations. For example, precinct officers are elected at once a year meetings, but by Robert's rules, for them to resign, there would have to be another meeting to accept their resignation. By laws do have provisions for removal and filling vacancies, just not resignations.

Recently, Our Party Chair was asked to resign by the most prominent elected officials in our Party. He agreed to do so, and a meeting was scheduled to replace him. At the meeting to have the election to replace him, Chair ruled that his resignation would require a vote, gave a stem winder speech, then moved acceptance of his resignation which devolved into confusion, increased division and resulted in his resignation being rejected. During same meeting, elections were on the agenda to replace two other officers who had resigned since the previous meeting, but no vote to accept their resignations was on the agenda.

Does Robert's Rules allow for the acceptance of long held traditions and practices by a body that are not spelled out in their by laws? How does Robert's Rules deal with inconsistency in it's application?

[jstackpo]

RONR spells out how to deal with customary practices on p.19.

Essentially, long standing practices are good until someone raises a point of order that the practice conflicts with existing rules, including those scattered through RONR and any rules you might have adopted. But if there is no conflict, the custom holds. Furthermore, someone has to raise the (formal) point of order in order to initiate the possible "overturn" of the custom. No (formal) complaints; no problems.

Appointing (or electing) someone to a position that is considered to be vacant due to a resignation, even if the resignation was never formally accepted (but everybody understands the person is indeed gone), would seem tantamount to "accepting" the resignation. Furthermore, if "there has been a reasonable opportunity for it [the resignation] to be accepted" the resignation can be considered as "accepted" and the person is no longer obligated to stay on. P. 291.

As far as what the status of your stem-winding Chairman might be, I fear you will have to figure that out for yourselves. (I wasn't there!)

[Guest Guest]

Thank you.

[jstackpo]

Glad to help -- don't hesitate to ask more questions...

[Gary Novosielski]

Our organizations bylaws do not specifically deal with resignations. It has never been deemed an issue that needed to be spelled out. By laws state that Robert's Rules guide what not mentioned.

In the 200 plus year history of our organization, a political party, there has never been a vote to accept the resignation of a party officer. This requirement would put a tremendous burden in all our operations. For example, precinct officers are elected at once a year meetings, but by Robert's rules, for them to resign, there would have to be another meeting to accept their resignation. By laws do have provisions for removal and filling vacancies, just not resignations.

Recently, Our Party Chair was asked to resign by the most prominent elected officials in our Party. He agreed to do so, and a meeting was scheduled to replace him. At the meeting to have the election to replace him, Chair ruled that his resignation would require a vote, gave a stem winder speech, then moved acceptance of his resignation which devolved into confusion, increased division and resulted in his resignation being rejected. During same meeting, elections were on the agenda to replace two other officers who had resigned since the previous meeting, but no vote to accept their resignations was on the agenda.

Does Robert's Rules allow for the acceptance of long held traditions and practices by a body that are not spelled out in their by laws? How does Robert's Rules deal with inconsistency in it's application?

I don't see the problem. Since you (presumably) have to hold a meeting to vote on the filling of vacancies, you can certainly move at that meeting to accept the resignation before filling the vacancy.

But I agree that adopting a motion to fill a vacancy is tantamount to accepting the resignation that would create the vacancy. It is absurd to think that group of sane people would agree to fill an office that they do not consider to be vacant.