No candidate for President

[Guest Jeannie Cole]

How is the phrase "until their successors are elected" to be interpreted?  I am the outgoing President of a civic organization who has fulfilled my two elected terms in this office.  The nominating committee has found nominees for each office except the Presidency.  Assuming no one is nominated for the position at the annual meeting, do I stay in as President until one can be elected?

[Richard Brown]

How is the phrase "until their successors are elected" to be interpreted?  I am the outgoing President of a civic organization who has fulfilled my two elected terms in this office.  The nominating committee has found nominees for each office except the Presidency.  Assuming no one is nominated for the position at the annual meeting, do I stay in as President until one can be elected?

Essentially, yes, that is what it means.

 

It also means that if the group had not been happy with you, they could have removed you from office easier than if your term was for a fixed period of time, such as for one year......  without the "or until  their successors are elected".

 

Note, however, that for purposes of removing someone from office, there is a difference between "and until their successors are elected" and "or until their successors are elected"  There is no difference, however, in the sense of holding over until a successor is elected.

 

You,  may, however, tender your resignation if you are tired of serving and the organization appears to not be moving forward with electing a successor.  You cannot be forced to continue serving.

[Edgar Guest]

You,  may, however, tender your resignation if you are tired of serving and the organization appears to not be moving forward with electing a successor.  You cannot be forced to continue serving.

 

Well, the resignation ("a request to be excused from a duty") doesn't have to be accepted. So, yes, you can't force someone to perform the duties of office but you can keep them in office.

[Richard Brown]

Well, the resignation ("a request to be excused from a duty") doesn't have to be accepted. So, yes, you can't force someone to perform the duties of office but you can keep them in office.

I think we have concluded in other threads on this subject that someone tendering a resignation cannot be forced to remain in office beyond a reasonable time for the society to accept the resignation. He certainly should not abandon his duties until such time.  

Perhaps the fine line between not being forced to perform a duty and not being forced to remain in office has not been conclusively decided, but I submit that the person cannot be forced to remain in office either.  If the organization has gone rogue and started performing illegal acts or doing things repugnant to the former officer's conscience, I do not believe he can be forced to remain an officer of that organization...duties or no duties.

[Edgar Guest]

I think we have concluded in other threads on this subject that someone tendering a resignation cannot be forced to remain in office beyond a reasonable time for the society to accept the resignation. 

 

Change that to "someone tendering a resignation cannot be forced to remain in office beyond a reasonable time for the society to act on the resignation" and I'm in agreement.

 

If a resignation must be accepted, why describe it as a request to be excused from a duty?

[Josh Martin]

I think we have concluded in other threads on this subject that someone tendering a resignation cannot be forced to remain in office beyond a reasonable time for the society to accept the resignation. He certainly should not abandon his duties until such time.  

Perhaps the fine line between not being forced to perform a duty and not being forced to remain in office has not been conclusively decided, but I submit that the person cannot be forced to remain in office either.  If the organization has gone rogue and started performing illegal acts or doing things repugnant to the former officer's conscience, I do not believe he can be forced to remain an officer of that organization...duties or no duties.

I don't think there is any rule in RONR which prevents an organization from claiming that so and so is still an officer of the organization, even if that person no longer performs the duties of office. It may well violate some rule in applicable law, particularly if "the organization has gone rogue and started performing illegal acts or doing things repugnant to the former officer's conscience."

There is ordinarily no point in doing this, however, so I don't know that the distinction is too important. To the best of my knowledge, the only time we've gotten a question about this is here, which was a very unusual situation that had much more to do with the organization's customized rules than the rules in RONR.

[Edgar Guest]

There is ordinarily no point in doing this, however, so I don't know that the distinction is too important. 

 

It might be important if eligibility to hold office in the future depends on whether one resigned or was removed.

 

It's the old "You can't fire me, I quit!" vs. "You can't quit, you're fired!"

[Josh Martin]

It might be important if eligibility to hold office in the future depends on whether one resigned or was removed.

 

It's the old "You can't fire me, I quit!" vs. "You can't quit, you're fired!"

 

Yes, I certainly agree that a society may refuse to accept a resignation for the purpose of pursuing disciplinary action instead. Mr. Brown seemed to be talking about something else.

[Edgar Guest]

Mr. Brown seemed to be talking about something else.

 

I agree.

[Gary Novosielski]

 

It also means that if the group had not been happy with you, they could have removed you from office easier than if your term was for a fixed period of time, such as for one year......  without the "or until  their successors are elected".

 

Note, however, that for purposes of removing someone from office, there is a difference between "and until their successors are elected" and "or until their successors are elected"  There is no difference, however, in the sense of holding over until a successor is elected.

 

 

I don't think we know which construction the OP actually has in the bylaws, but as you say, it's not really relevant to the question.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you, Gentlemen.  That is helpful.  After 4 years of service, I am ready to turn the organization to someone else, but I suppose I will "hang in there" until someone can be found to ramrod this civic organization.