Guest nmfd Posted December 11, 2012 at 01:18 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 01:18 PM At this years annual election of officers an incumbent ran for a different office then he currently held and removed his name from the ballot for his current office.A different individual put his name on the ballot to run for the soon to be vacated position; he did so only to be certain the office wouldn't go unfilled.The orginal officer did not win his attempt at the new office and as a result the individual who stepped in to fill the vacated office would now like to step down and allow the original officer to continue to fill his old position.Is there a specific procedure we need to follow to accept the officer elect's withdraw from office and appoint the incumbent to fill the office for the upcoming term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 11, 2012 at 01:59 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 01:59 PM Let me see if I can "translate" what happened into RONR-standard terms.... and ask a few detail questions that could make a difference...Incumbent (call him I) ran for a new position but lost that election.Question: was his term as incumbent over at that time - i.e. is he out of office, any office, now?The different individual (call him D) ran for I's (old) office and won.Question: did D agree to serve if elected prior to, or after, actually getting elected, i.e. does D actually hold the (new) office now?What offices are involved? What do your bylaws say about how to fill vacancies in office?Answer those questions, and we can go on from there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:02 PM Is there a specific procedure we need to follow to accept the officer elect's withdraw from office and appoint the incumbent to fill the office for the upcoming term?You could accept the officer's resignation and, if you have the authority to do so, appoint the former officer (or any other eligible candidate) to fill the vacancy. It seems a bit shifty to me, but it's not "illegal". I'd probably vote to appoint someone else just so that this tactic doesn't become habitual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:56 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 02:56 PM By the way, nothing in RONR would have prevented the former officer from being a candidate for both offices (i.e. his old office and the new one) and, if elected to both, choosing the one he wanted (presumably the new office). Or, if losing the new office but winning the old, keeping the old. As Joe Lieberman did when he ran for both the Vice-Presidency and his current seat in the Senate.If your rules prevent that then the method that was used might not be the worst thing in the world, especially if the prospective "place-holder" made it clear what he would do (i.e. resign) should he be elected and the former officer not win the new seat he was seeking. At least then the voters would know what they were getting. But it still smacks of gaming the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nmfd Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:18 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:18 PM The is a Fire Department and the Treasurer (I) whose term will expire 31Dec, 2012 ran for Fire Chief he felt it would be a conflict of interest to hold both offices so he removed his name from the ballot for the Treasurer.(D) wasn't completely certain he wanted the position of Treasurer but was persuaded to accept the nomination and he ran unopposed.(I)'s attempt at Chief failed and he is fine with not having either position however (D) would now prefere that (I) keep the Treasurer's position.We try to adhere as closely as possible to Roberts Rules and I don't believe our Constitution or By-Laws specifically addresses this particular situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:29 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:29 PM . . he felt it would be a conflict of interest to hold both offices . . .Perhaps but, like ol' Joe Lieberman, he could still have been a candidate for both offices.In any case, it doesn't look like any rule was broken (yet). But unless your bylaws have a provision for filling mid-term vacancies, you'll need to hold another election. The unelected (soon to be former) treasurer certainly has no right to simply "keep" his old office.By the way, how much time passed between the time D accepted the office of treasurer and then submitted his resignation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nmfd Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:48 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 05:48 PM The election took place on 05Dec,2012 (D) started thinking about this sometime over the weekend and hasn't officially stated his intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 11, 2012 at 06:14 PM Report Share Posted December 11, 2012 at 06:14 PM Maybe when D sees how much money he will have control over (Yeah, right!) he will decide to keep the job after all. It is his choice. Cancun beckons, as do the Bahamas... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.