election fraud

[Guest Richard Nola]

In a non-profit organization a current officer is running for reelection at the urging of the President, so that after he is reelected he can then resign, allowing the President to appoint his successor, therefore allowing the President to avoid having someone elected not to his liking.

[Edgar Guest]

Campaign for, and elect, someone else. It shouldn't be too hard to convince your fellow members to vote for someone other than a person who has indicated he will resign once he's elected.

[Guest Richard Nola]

I hear you, however this is being done underhanded and I am not supposed to know, this President has no integrity.

[Edgar Guest]

I am not supposed to know . . .

Well, you do know. And now, thanks to the magic of the Internet, the whole world knows.

[TREBOR]

"Campaign for, and elect, someone else. It shouldn't be too hard to convince your fellow members to vote for someone other than a person who has indicated he will resign once he's elected." (post 2)) 

If the individual is elected, his or her resignation does not have to be accepted.  

[Edgar Guest]

If the individual is elected, his or her resignation does not have to be accepted.  

 

True. But there's not much point in keeping someone in office who doesn't want the job. Although if he goes through with the plot and submits his resignation shortly after taking office, the organization might want to instead remove him from office (the old "You can't quit; you're fired!" gambit). Either way, you end up with a vacancy the president can, presumably, fill.

 

Best to not elect him in the first place.

[g40]

I would also question your organization's (apparent) provision that allows the President to fill vacancies on the Board.

[Edgar Guest]

I would also question your organization's (apparent) provision that allows the President to fill vacancies on the Board.

 

There's a board?

[jstackpo]

I suppose this would be a (rare) occasion when not accepting a resignation would make sense.  To be sure you will have cipher in the office in question (although maybe he'll change his mind when he sees all the perks that go with the office), but at least you will block the president's effort(s) to put all "his" people in place.

 

And, meanwhile, you could get up and propose an amendment to the bylaws that took away the president's sole (?) power to fill vacancies.

[Josh Martin]

Campaign for, and elect, someone else. It shouldn't be too hard to convince your fellow members to vote for someone other than a person who has indicated he will resign once he's elected.

In my opinion, it would be highly indecorous to accuse the President and candidate of orchestrating these events in order to permit the President to appoint someone he personally supports, let alone to accuse them of "election fraud" or of "having no integrity." I agree that the first step is to try to prevent this person from being elected, but this will need to be based on the merits of the candidates, not on the information the OP has uncovered.

I hear you, however this is being done underhanded and I am not supposed to know, this President has no integrity.

If you are unable to prevent the member from being elected, then another option would be to remove the President and the newly appointed officer from office. See FAQ #20 for more information. After the election is over, the assembly will have time to appropriately investigate the issues involved, and if this person does indeed resign shortly after his election, that will likely make the members suspicious.

If the individual is elected, his or her resignation does not have to be accepted.

If the Bylaws authorize the President to fill vacancies, then the President decides whether to accept the resignation.

I suppose this would be a (rare) occasion when not accepting a resignation would make sense.  To be sure you will have cipher in the office in question (although maybe he'll change his mind when he sees all the perks that go with the office), but at least you will block the president's effort(s) to put all "his" people in place.

 

And, meanwhile, you could get up and propose an amendment to the bylaws that took away the president's sole (?) power to fill vacancies.

If the President has the sole power to fill vacancies, then he also has the sole power to accept resignations (unless the bylaws provide otherwise).

[Edgar Guest]

In my opinion, it would be highly indecorous to accuse the President and candidate of orchestrating these events in order to permit the President to appoint someone he personally supports, let alone to accuse them of "election fraud" or of "having no integrity."

 

No one has to accuse anyone of anything. But I think Mr. Nola is free (outside of the context of a meeting) to tell his fellow members that he has reason to believe this candidate intends to resign once elected. The members can take that for what they think it's worth.

[TREBOR]

"If the individual is elected, his or her resignation does not have to be accepted."  (Mr Martin)  

"The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it the power to accept their resignations, and also the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise.p. 467  

 

I disagree that the bylaws giving the president the power to fill a vacancy also give him the power to accept an elected officer's resignation.  The assembly,as I understand the question, has the power to elect to the office and therefore has the power to accept the elected officer's resignation.  The bylaws give the president the power to fill a vacancy in office, not to accept the resignation unless the bylaws specifically state the president has the power to accept an officer's resignation. 

 

I interpret the vacancy provision in RONR to mean that if the bylaws state that "the president, vice-president, secretary and treasurer shall be elected at the annual meeting and then state that two delegates shall be appointed by the president. to serve ... "; then in the vacancy provision provide for the president to fill vacancies in office, then the only resignations the president could accept would be the two delegates the president has the power to appoint and an elected officer submits a resignation, then the membership who elected the officer  must accept his or her resignation before the president can fill the office as no vacancy exists until the resignation is accepted by the membership that elected the officer accept the resignation.  

[Josh Martin]

"If the individual is elected, his or her resignation does not have to be accepted."  (Mr Martin)  

"The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it the power to accept their resignations, and also the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise.p. 467  

 

I disagree that the bylaws giving the president the power to fill a vacancy also give him the power to accept an elected officer's resignation.  The assembly,as I understand the question, has the power to elect to the office and therefore has the power to accept the elected officer's resignation.  The bylaws give the president the power to fill a vacancy in office, not to accept the resignation unless the bylaws specifically state the president has the power to accept an officer's resignation. 

I disagree wholeheartedly with this, because the very purpose of giving the authority to fill vacancies to someone else (the board, the president, etc.) is because the membership meets infrequently in many societies, and the society wishes for vacancies to be filled promptly. If the membership must still accept resignations, it defeats the entire purpose of authorizing the President or the board to fill vacancies.

[jstackpo]

Agreed - the power to appoint includes the power to accept resignations, and indeed includes the power to remove someone from office.

 

My remark, in post #9, is perhaps interesting, but has no direct bearing on OP Nola's original question, nor on Trebor's comments, since the president has the full appoint-accept-remove-replace authority.

[Richard Brown]

Agreed - the power to appoint includes the power to accept resignations, and indeed includes the power to remove someone from office.

 

My remark, in post #9, is perhaps interesting, but has no direct bearing on OP Nola's original question, nor on Trebor's comments, since the president has the full appoint-accept-remove-replace authority.

He does?  The president has the power to remove officers?   He might have the power to remove one or both of the two delegates since he has the sole power to appoint them, but I don't see where anything in the very sketchy information the original poster provided gives the president the right to remove officers.   He apparently has the power to fill a vacancy in an office, but not the power to remove an officer.  They are elected by the membership. Am i missing something?

 

That distinction may not have any bearing on your conclusion that the president has the authority to accept resignations, but it does change the premise that your conclusion seems to be based on. 

 

I agree that the president seems to have the authority to accept an officer's resignation since he has (presumably) the sold sole power to fill the vacancy, but I also see TREBOR's point in post # 12 that this situation is somewhat different from the situation mentioned on page 467 on lines 28 - 35 where the board has full authority over the society between meetings of the assembly.  Here's the pertinent language from page 467:

 

"In the case of a society whose bylaws confer upon its executive board full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly (as in the example on p. 578, ll. 11–15) without reserving to the society itself the exclusive right to fill vacancies, the executive board is empowered to accept resignations and fill vacancies between meetings of the society's assembly."

 

Here, the president does not have "full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly" as mentioned on page 467.  As it pertains to this situation, he has only the power to fill vacancies.   I believe that probably gives him the power to accept a resignation, but I think that because of that missing  language the situation here is a bit murky.  I suspect that is the point that TREBOR was picking up on.  

 

 

Edited to add:  It can be argued that a vacancy doesn't exist until the resignation has been accepted and nothing gives the president the power to accept a resignation.  He could clearly do so if he had "full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly", but he doesn't have that authority.

 

I still believe, though, that the president has the power to accept a resignation in this case because, as Josh pointed out in post # 13, it would create an awkward and untenable situation if the president had to await what might be a far off meeting of the general membership to accept the resignation before he could fill the vacancy.

[Tom Coronite]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this, because the very purpose of giving the authority to fill vacancies to someone else (the board, the president, etc.) is because the membership meets infrequently in many societies, and the society wishes for vacancies to be filled promptly. If the membership must still accept resignations, it defeats the entire purpose of authorizing the President or the board to fill vacancies.

 

Not to disagree, but just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion:  even if the society meets infrequently, the vacancy wouldn't exist until the resignation is accepted, so couldn't the society still retain the right to accept the resignation, and after they do, the president fills the vacancy?  Wouldn't it still be filled promptly after it becomes vacant? (understanding the undesirable situation of having in office a person no longer wanting to fill the role)

[Dan Honemann]

We seem to be back in the business of interpreting bylaw provisions that no one has seen.

[Tom Coronite]

My apologies for that. I took the assertion that the president has the right to accept the resignation as suggested by RONR. Maybe it wasn't, and that's my bad then.

[Dan Honemann]

My apologies for that. I took the assertion that the president has the right to accept the resignation as suggested by RONR. Maybe it wasn't, and that's my bad then.

 

No need for you to apologize. Post #17 was directed to no one in particular.

[Josh Martin]

Not to disagree, but just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion:  even if the society meets infrequently, the vacancy wouldn't exist until the resignation is accepted, so couldn't the society still retain the right to accept the resignation, and after they do, the president fills the vacancy?  Wouldn't it still be filled promptly after it becomes vacant? (understanding the undesirable situation of having in office a person no longer wanting to fill the role)

Yes, this is correct. My words were not chosen carefully enough. What I should have said is that such a society presumably desires resignations to be accepted promptly and for the resulting vacancies to be promptly filled.

My apologies for that. I took the assertion that the president has the right to accept the resignation as suggested by RONR. Maybe it wasn't, and that's my bad then.

Well, that was my assertion, and if it is not correct, I welcome any clarification. The specifics of a particular organization are, of course, a matter of bylaws interpretation, but it is my understanding that, as a general rule, the authority to fill vacancies carries with it the authority to accept resignations.

[Dan Honemann]

 The specifics of a particular organization are, of course, a matter of bylaws interpretation, but it is my understanding that, as a general rule, the authority to fill vacancies carries with it the authority to accept resignations.

 

I do not disagree with this at all.