Elections and Resignations before installation

[Guest Cece Heimans]

Our membership elected the incoming board.  Before the installation one member resigned.  What is the proper way to proceed?

 

 

Should the board appoint a new member to the open position and hold the installation?

 

Should the President open it up at a general membership meeting?  Calling for nominations from the floor prior to installation?

 

 Should the President use the appointed person and report under new business the letter of resignation and the appointment by the board so that the new member can be included in the installation?

 

 

Thank you,

 

[jstackpo]

Lots of "maybe"s here.

 

RONR has it that an elected officer takes office immediately upon the election being final - p. 444 - "unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time".  Do yours?

 

It will be up to you, collectively, to decide whether your "installation" is, in effect, a delay in actually taking office or is just a nice ceremony recognizing that the person is (and has been since the election) in office; p. 588 tells how you make that decision.

 

If it is a real delay to "a later time", then your election is incomplete since the electee turned down the election to office before he entered into it.  You will have to run a new election.

 

If it is just a "nice ceremony" then your person was in office, officially, and resigned.  If that is the case, check your bylaws to see how vacancies in office are filled.  If they don't say, you are back to an election anyway - p. 444 (or p. 467, maybe).

[Edgar Guest]

If it is a real delay to "a later time", then your election is incomplete since the electee turned down the election to office before he entered into it. 

 

I thought the election was complete when the winning candidate agreed to take office (even if he later changed his mind).

[jstackpo]

I suppose it is word-splitting, but if the bylaws do indeed set a specific later time to actually take office  --  like "June 1st, after the April election", then the electee can't "resign" because he isn't in any office to resign from, yet.   So even though he agreed to run (a while ago) and serve if elected, he has now (after the election) changed his mind, non serviam, and there is nobody available to actually take the office. Which sounds "incomplete" to me.

 

This debate is what RONR (wisely) finesses by the "take office immediately" rule.

 

One way out of the problem (for Guest_Cece) is to say "Sorry, you can't "resign" now; but as soon as you take office at the installation, feel free to do so."  Then the "fill vacancy" rule, whatever it is, can kick in to replace him.

 

This is all kinda silly-formal (the sort of nit-picking that gives us parliamentarians a bad name) but is there another logical way out of the rule?

[Edgar Guest]

So even though he agreed to run (a while ago) and serve if elected, he has now (after the election) changed his mind, non serviam, and there is nobody available to actually take the office. Which sounds "incomplete" to me.

 

We don't know that he agreed to "run" (whatever that may mean) and we don't know that he agreed, in advance, to serve if elected. All we know is that sometime after he was elected and (presumably) accepted (or, at least, didn't reject) the office, he decided he didn't want the job. Yes, it sounds "incomplete" but is parliamentarily incomplete?

 

One way out of the problem (for Guest_Cece) is to say "Sorry, you can't "resign" now; but as soon as you take office at the installation, feel free to do so."  Then the "fill vacancy" rule, whatever it is, can kick in to replace him.

Oddly enough, I'm not sure I have a problem with that. Though I might wake up in the middle of the night with second thoughts.

 

And I thought nit-picking gave parliamentarians a good name. At least among other parliamentarians.

[Guest cece heimans]

Update on the information provided.

 

Yes the person ran for office and was elected - the installation is to be held in June as our year runs from June to June.

 

Since you indicated that the person must be installed to resign then they must go through the installation?

 

The sitting President can't call for a special election from the membership in June?

 

We have nothing in our book of BSP regarding resignation prior to installation.

 

Thank you,

Cece

[jstackpo]

 

We have nothing in our book of BSP regarding resignation prior to installation.

 

Whatever your BSP may be, you are not alone in your situation with a delayed installation after an election is completed.  I warn associations about this anomalous possibility from time to time.

 

Unfortunately, RONR, as noted, doesn't deal with this problem so you are on your own. 

 

Your reluctant electee doesn't have to show up for the installation at all, actually.  RONR does note, p. 444, lines 30-32, that when the time of the installation is past, he will be in office even though he isn't there.  So as soon as the ceremony is over, someone, you, can tell people that he has (now) resigned (maybe you could get that in writing, effective the date/time of the close of the installation ceremony) and the vacancy filling method in your bylaws may be employed to fill the now vacant position. (You haven't told us what that method is, not that it matters.)

[Gary Novosielski]

I suppose it is word-splitting, but if the bylaws do indeed set a specific later time to actually take office  --  like "June 1st, after the April election", then the electee can't "resign" because he isn't in any office to resign from, yet.   So even though he agreed to run (a while ago) and serve if elected, he has now (after the election) changed his mind, non serviam, and there is nobody available to actually take the office. Which sounds "incomplete" to me.

 

In another context, Josh Martin has raised the possibility of a VP requesting to be excused from the duty of becoming president upon the latter's imminent resignation. 

 

I'm not sure the answer to that question is clear, but it seems fair to wonder if a person having been elected can formally "resign" in advance of taking office (where the bylaws delay inauguration). 

 

In general, can one ask to be excused from a duty which has not yet fallen upon him, effective at the time when it does?   And if it's allowed in the case of election, does it create a vacancy, or retroactively incomplete the election?

[Transpower]

As a practical matter, I would advise a client in this situation to have the reluctant electee decline his election, and a special election be held at the June meeting, prior to the installation.

[Bruce Lages]

I'm not sure that the additional information posted by Guest cece heimans has answered the question of whether the date of installation is the same as the starting date for the term of office. If your year runs from June to June, is that also the actual term of office?

 

And a clarification - I don't think anyone here said that an officer has to be installed to resign. The officer must take office before a resignation can be offered. Your statement would be true, of course, if the start of your term of office and the installation date are the same.

[Edgar Guest]

As a practical matter, I would advise a client in this situation to have the reluctant electee decline his election, and a special election be held at the June meeting, prior to the installation.

 

But, in this instance, the (now) reluctant electee presumably had already accepted the office at the time of election. I can understand that your advice might be that he shouldn't have done that but I'm not sure how that addresses the current problem.

 

If he had declined the election at the time he was elected there'd be no need for a special election, just the continuation of the regular (and incomplete) election.

[Josh Martin]

In general, can one ask to be excused from a duty which has not yet fallen upon him, effective at the time when it does?

 

I see no reason why not.

 

And if it's allowed in the case of election, does it create a vacancy, or retroactively incomplete the election?

 

Under the rules in RONR, it certainly creates a vacancy. I don't think there is a way to "retroactively incomplete" an election except when the election was null and void, since then it wasn't truly completed in the first place.

 

Of course, this situation wouldn't arise under the rules in RONR, since officers take office immediately upon election, so there may need to be some bylaws interpretation.

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't think there is a way to "retroactively incomplete" an election except when the election was null and void, since then it wasn't truly completed in the first place.

 

i was hoping you didn't. 

[Guest Cece]

All I appreciate your answers and the information provided

 

BSP is an international Women's organization -  The term run June to June and they are installed at the last meeting of the year.

 

The concerns are as follows

 

As the individual gave a letter withdrawing from the office at the joint board meeting are we required to have an election to fill the now open position

Our past presidents are stating the we must wait

Not install the person and appoint a person at the board appoint a person to an elected position at the July board meeting.

My concern is as an elected position is there cause to be concerned that someone might object to this?

 

Your answers are appreciated  

[Gary c Tesser]

Object?

Great Steaming Cobnuts.

[Josh Martin]

All I appreciate your answers and the information provided

 

BSP is an international Women's organization -  The term run June to June and they are installed at the last meeting of the year.

 

The concerns are as follows

 

As the individual gave a letter withdrawing from the office at the joint board meeting are we required to have an election to fill the now open position

Our past presidents are stating the we must wait

Not install the person and appoint a person at the board appoint a person to an elected position at the July board meeting.

My concern is as an elected position is there cause to be concerned that someone might object to this?

 

Your answers are appreciated  

 

As others have noted, RONR doesn't really address this problem as this situation doesn't arise under the rules in RONR. It will be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

And yes, I think there is cause to be concerned that someone might object to the board's plan. I'm not necessarily saying the board's plan is right or wrong, but I imagine at least some members of the organization won't like it.