resignation

[micky]

if 2 officers resign [an excuse from duty] and there is a motion made and seconded to accept the  2 resignations in the same motion however no action was called on the motion; but by unanimous consent a secret ballot was taken on the resignations together which was defeated by ballot. Is the original motion still on the table or is the original motion accepted as defeated by the ballot.  (where can one locate the ruling in RONR).  It is noted that both officers were listed in the same motion to accept their resignations as opposed to two separate motions and both voted using the one single ballot to cover both names. My understanding they each could vote due to the other persons name included in the unanimous consent ballot.

[Rev Ed]

The motion to accept the resignations should read something like this "That the resignations of ____ and ____ be accepted."  A motion to vote by ballot would fall under Section 30 of RONR, starting on page 283 entitled "Motions Relating to Methods of Voting and the Polls."  The motion to hold a ballot vote is an incidental vote that would occur prior to the main motion to accept the resignations.  If the group decides to hold a ballot vote, and the ballot vote does not result in a majority vote to accept the resignations, then the resignations are not accepted.

[Edgar Guest]

Is the original motion still on the table or is the original motion accepted as defeated by the ballot. 

 

It seems to me that the motion to accept both resignations was defeated. Whether either of the resigning officers should have voted is immaterial. As members they had a right to vote.

[Timothy]

And it doesn't appear their vote effected the outcome, since you would assume that a person who resigns would vote in favor of accepting the resignation.

[Josh Martin]

if 2 officers resign [an excuse from duty] and there is a motion made and seconded to accept the  2 resignations in the same motion however no action was called on the motion; but by unanimous consent a secret ballot was taken on the resignations together which was defeated by ballot. Is the original motion still on the table or is the original motion accepted as defeated by the ballot.  (where can one locate the ruling in RONR).  It is noted that both officers were listed in the same motion to accept their resignations as opposed to two separate motions and both voted using the one single ballot to cover both names. My understanding they each could vote due to the other persons name included in the unanimous consent ballot.

 

I concur with the previous responses, and I would note that generally the only reason not to accept a resignation is if the group would prefer to pursue disciplinary procedures instead. You can't really force someone to continue serving against his will.

[Guest Michelle W]

In another twist of this same question: 

 

A resignation by one person is submitted; it is not voted on but the membership is told they do not have to accept the resignation. 

 

Removal of a board member in this organization requires a 2/3 majority vote for any one of four reasons.  

 

A motion to remove based on a report but not specifically stating a reason is made.  It is not only made against the person who tried to resign but against another person as well.  That motion passes.  Motion was "Move to remove ________ and ____________ from their positions as __________ and _____________ on the board.  

 

Note that neither person wishes to remain on the board but procedurally could be important due to other issues.  

[Guest Nancy N.]

In another twist of this same question: ...  

 

MIchelle W, are you asking whether those two board members should have voted on the motion to remove them from the board?

 

(And, are you "micky," the original poster?)

[Guest Michelle W]

not micky and no asking if the organization can just refuse, without a vote, the resignation on a board member and then move to have them removed and removed without the reason being specific in the motion

[jstackpo]

not micky and no asking if the organization can just refuse, without a vote, the resignation on a board member and then move to have them removed and removed without the reason being specific in the motion

 

Sort of....but...

 

An organization cannot do something without a decision, on the part of the members of the organization, to choose to do it.  And the way the members reach a decision is by a vote, or "unanimous consent".  So there has to be some decision process to come up with a refusal to accept a resignation. 

 

Whether the association can then "remove" someone (from what?) by adopting a simple motion will depend on your bylaws.  The bylaws have to give that power to the membership to do so with just a motion.  Otherwise you will need to look at Chapter 20 for the fair, although not "easy", process to "remove" someone.

[Edgar Guest]

not micky and no asking if the organization can just refuse, without a vote, the resignation on a board member and then move to have them removed and removed without the reason being specific in the motion

 

Perhaps you can now understand why this forum (unlike some others) works best if new questions are posted as new topics (even if you find an existing topic that seems similar).

[Gary c Tesser]

not micky and no ....

Perhaps you can now understand why ....

 

Mr Guest, do you really think that this arch tone is appropriately addressed to Michelle W?  Granted that adding a related question to an existing discussion thread is an ongoing bugbear of yours, as it is one of mine too, it is unfair, and impolite, to dump this vitriol on Michelle W, unless she has, in fact, been an egregious transgressor in this respect, but I don't particularly recognize her name as someone who has done this before and has been asked not to; so unless you do, maybe you should ratchet down the unjustified disrespect to new posters a notch.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . arch tone . . . an ongoing bugbear . . . vitriol . . . unjustified disrespect . . . 

 

WTF???

 

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry I was looking for an answer and saw this topic and thought it was related.  I am happy to put the question in a new topic (don't want to start anything).  

 

It is just something that happened last night and procedural didn't seem right and when I did a search of the topics this came up.  

 

My apologies for a message board faux paux.  

[Josh Martin]

not micky and no asking if the organization can just refuse, without a vote, the resignation on a board member and then move to have them removed and removed without the reason being specific in the motion

 

I suppose if no one is willing to make a motion to accept the resignation of the board member (or if the only person willing to make the motion is the person submitting the resignation, and no one else is willing to second it), the Request to be Excused from a Duty is defeated without a vote. Otherwise, no, a vote must be taken in order to refuse the request.

 

As to removing the board member, it depends. See FAQ #20.

[Josh Martin]

An organization cannot do something without a decision, on the part of the members of the organization, to choose to do it.  And the way the members reach a decision is by a vote, or "unanimous consent".  So there has to be some decision process to come up with a refusal to accept a resignation. 

 

In this case, I think it would have to be a vote. It seems rather unlikely that an assembly can obtain unanimous consent to refuse a resignation (so long as the person resigning is a member of the assembly).

[jstackpo]

Unless he didn't come to the meeting.

[Gary c Tesser]

Sort of....but...

 

An organization cannot do something without a decision, on the part of the members of the organization, to choose to do it.  And the way the members reach a decision is by a vote, or "unanimous consent".  So there has to be some decision process to come up with a refusal to accept a resignation. ....

 

But John, if the organization has simply disregarded the proffered resignation; that is, no one has actually moved to accept the resignation, and it's simply among the stack of incoming mail on the secretary's desk ("table," as the term of art has it), then it's a nullity, or in limbo, don't you think?  And the organization can go about disciplining the person regardless, yes?

 

So, Michelle W, did anyone actually make a motion to accept the resignation?

 

And, MIchelle, it depends on whether the rule about the four reasons requires explicitly that one (at least) of the four reasons be cited explicitly.  

-- Umm, maybe.

 

,,, And it wasn't a faux paux (mighod, that's brilliant.  Those silly French.), it was barely a solecism.  We old guys just kvetch at each other now and then.

 

[Edited to take out the period after "French"]

[Now edited to put the period back.  See the Isaac Asimov bit about Oscar Wilde.]

[Gary c Tesser]

... Speaking of which:

 

Perhaps you can now understand ...

 

You really don't think this suggests that Michelle W has heard this before, and disregards it?

 

WTF???

 

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

"Don't Bite The Newbies."

[jstackpo]

But John, if the organization has simply disregarded the proffered resignation; that is, no one has actually moved to accept the resignation, and it's simply among the stack of incoming mail on the secretary's desk ("table," as the term of art has it), then it's a nullity, or in limbo, don't you think?  And the organization can go about disciplining the person regardless, yes?

 

Well, maybe.  But if a "reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted" (p. 291) has come and gone  --  like the letter fell of the desk into the trash (I hate it when that happens)  --  it will be too late to initiate disciplinary procedures.  This is a variant on a statute of limitations.

 

But what is reasonable?  We can leave that to the association to decide when a friend of the resigner raises that as a point of order when a motion is made to initiate disciplinary procedures.

[Gary c Tesser]

...  when a friend of the resigner raises that as a point of order when a motion is made to initiate disciplinary procedures.

 

What?  "You can't fire him, he already quit!"??

[jstackpo]

No... The point of order would be "A reasonable opportunity, a month [say], to accept or reject his resignation has past - he is out of our reach now for any disciplinary procedures."

 

Then the raiser of this point goes and collects his payoff from the resigner.

[Timothy]

No... The point of order would be "A reasonable opportunity, a month [say], to accept or reject his resignation has past - he is out of our reach now for any disciplinary procedures."

 

Then the raiser of this point goes and collects his payoff from the resigner.

 

"A month"? I don't see "a reasonable opportunity" as being time based, rather it is whether there has been an opportunity in a meeting in which a motion could be made to accept the resignation.

[Edgar Guest]

Perhaps you can now understand why this forum (unlike some others) works best if new questions are posted as new topics (even if you find an existing topic that seems similar).

 

You really don't think this suggests that Michelle W has heard this before, and disregards it?

Actually, my reply was prompted by your your friend's expressed confusion:

 

(And, are you "micky," the original poster?)

[jstackpo]

"A month"? I don't see "a reasonable opportunity" as being time based, rather it is whether there has been an opportunity in a meeting in which a motion could be made to accept the resignation.

 

O.K. so you are now debating "reasonableness". 

 

Since I'm not a member of the association confronted with the possibility of a "leisurely" opportunity to consider the resignation request, I think I shall pass on any participation in that debate.

[Timothy]

O.K. so you are now debating "reasonableness". 

 

Since I'm not a member of the association confronted with the possibility of a "leisurely" opportunity to consider the resignation request, I think I shall pass on any participation in that debate.

You're the one who suggested that a month was reasonable.