Acceptance of a chair appointment

[wallz]

A bylaw has given the chair the right to appoint an acting chairperson. What is not addressed is whether this person must accept this appointment. Is this implied or explicit per Roberts Rules of Order?

[jstackpo]

Implied or Explicit?  It isn't explicit in RONR, but RONR does recognize a "resignation" - a request to be excused from a duty - in §32.  So it certainly follows that one could refuse to accept a duty in the first place.

 

What chairman would even consider appointing someone who wouldn't do the job?

[Josh Martin]

A bylaw has given the chair the right to appoint an acting chairperson. What is not addressed is whether this person must accept this appointment. Is this implied or explicit per Roberts Rules of Order?

 

The member does not need to formally accept the appointment (he is presumed to accept if he does not decline), but certainly the chair cannot appoint someone against his will. The member is free to decline the appointment when he first learns of it, unless your bylaws provide otherwise.

 

It isn't explicit in RONR, but RONR does recognize a "resignation" - a request to be excused from a duty - in §32.  So it certainly follows that one could refuse to accept a duty in the first place.

 

Declining an elected office is addressed in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444, lines 18-25. I think the same principles would apply for an appointed position.

[wallz]

The issue is that the persons were appointed without their permission or knowledge. Some have numbers that are inactive. One person was contacted and said they never agreed to do this role. So if the person never knew they were appointed they don't have the ability to decline. If one does find out that a person was appointed without their knowledge, does that make the original appointment null and void?

[wallz]

JDStackpole, someone is trying to manipulate the bylaws and set up these committee chairpersons for a later purpose. There is a deadline which is extended "if" a temporary person fails to meet a meeting quorum. Of course there will never be a meeting because the persons appointed did know they had the position.

[Guest Nancy N.]

JDStackpole, someone is trying to manipulate the bylaws and set up these committee chairpersons for a later purpose. There is a deadline which is extended "if" a temporary person fails to meet a meeting quorum. Of course there will never be a meeting because the persons appointed did know they had the position.

 

(To start with:  I can make no sense of this post unless "not" was accidentally dropped out of the last sentence:  "because the persons appointed did NOT know they had the position."  Is this the case?

 

(Also:  what does "a ... person fails to meet a meeting quorum" mean?)

 

Please clear these up, and I think we can get started.

[Josh Martin]

If one does find out that a person was appointed without their knowledge, does that make the original appointment null and void?

 

No, it does not make the original appointment null and void, but it does delay its effect. As noted previously, the member is free to decline the appointment when he first learns of it. An election or appointment is not effective until the person learns of it and does not immediately decline.

 

JDStackpole, someone is trying to manipulate the bylaws and set up these committee chairpersons for a later purpose. There is a deadline which is extended "if" a temporary person fails to meet a meeting quorum. Of course there will never be a meeting because the persons appointed did know they had the position.

 

I don't really understand this, but if someone is intentionally appointing people to positions without informing them in order to try to find some sort of loophole in the organization's rules, I suggest looking at FAQ #20 for a solution to that problem.