ED resignation

[Guest Tlo]

Does the board have to vote to accept the resignation of an ED

[Chris Harrison]

Does the Board HAVE to accept the resignation?  Probably not unless the rules make the resignation effective as soon as it is given so a vote isn't necessary or proper.

 

Does the Board need to take a vote on whether to accept the resignation.  Maybe or maybe not, depending on if the Board is the proper body to accept the resignation and if a vote is even necessary.

[Richard Brown]

Since the ED (Executive Director?) is probably an employee, the answer probably won't be found in RONR, unless he is resigning from his membership in the organization.

 

The  resignation of an employee is a legal matter and possibly a contract matter, both of which are beyond the scope of this forum.

[Transpower]

RONR (11th ed.), p. 467, ll. 28-35:  "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...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."

[Richard Brown]

Does the board have to vote to accept the resignation of an ED

 

RONR (11th ed.), p. 467, ll. 28-35:  "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...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."

I don't think the question is so much whether the Board can accept the resignation of the executive director, but rather if the board must accept the resignation in order for it to be effective. 

 

An executive director is usually an employee.  If he is resigning from his position as executive director, that is a matter of employer-employee or contract law, not parliamentary law.  The rules in RONR regarding the resignations of members from office or from membership would not apply, except to the extent that the executive director might also be a member of the society and is resigning as a member, rather than as an employee.

[Josh Martin]

I don't think the question is so much whether the Board can accept the resignation of the executive director, but rather if the board must accept the resignation in order for it to be effective.

An executive director is usually an employee. If he is resigning from his position as executive director, that is a matter of employer-employee or contract law, not parliamentary law. The rules in RONR regarding the resignations of members from office or from membership would not apply, except to the extent that the executive director might also be a member of the society and is resigning as a member, rather than as an employee.

The rules in RONR regarding a Request to be Excused from a Duty apply to resigning from any position, not just resigning from office or from membership. As a matter of parliamentary law, the board (if the board is the body which hired the ED, which is usually the case), must accept the resignation for it to be effective.

It is certainly correct that any rules in the ED's contract or applicable law will prevail over RONR, but your view of resignations in parliamentary law is too narrow.

[Richard Brown]

Josh, the provisions in RONR for a request to be excused from a duty apply to MEMBERS.  There is nothing here indicating that the executive director is a member of the organization.

 

If he is a paid executive director and is resigning from his position as executive director, the procedure for doing so is a legal matter, not  a parliamentary matter.   That is the only point I am trying to make.

[Josh Martin]

Josh, the provisions in RONR for a request to be excused from a duty apply to MEMBERS. There is nothing here indicating that the executive director is a member of the organization.

If he is a paid executive director and is resigning from his position as executive director, the procedure for doing so is a legal matter, not a parliamentary matter. That is the only point I am trying to make.

I disagree with this assertion that the provisions in RONR for Request to be Excused from a Duty apply exclusively to members. While the text does seem to assume that they will primarily be applied to members of the society, I see no reason why the same rules would not generally apply, as a matter of parliamentary law, to resignations by non-members from positions within the society.

I have no disagreement with the fact that, if this person is a paid employee of the society, there are quite likely rules in applicable law and/or the employee's contract on this matter, and those rules are controlling.

[Transpower]

So let's say that the board refuses to accept the resignation of the executive director.  What then?  Can the board force the executive director to remain?  Of course not!

[Josh Martin]

So let's say that the board refuses to accept the resignation of the executive director. What then? Can the board force the executive director to remain? Of course not!

I don't know that we can say that with any degree of certainty. Officer positions and membership within a society is generally voluntary, and as such, a society cannot really force someone to remain in a position. The main reason to refuse a resignation in such cases is if the society wishes to remove the person from office or expel the member instead.

Paid employment can be a bit different, and as Mr. Brown suggests, this is where we start straying from RONR and entering the realm of employment and contract law. If the ED has a contract, then it may not be as simple as saying "I quit."

[Timothy]

I see no reason to think that a request to be excused from duty should be handled differently for an employee than for a member. The real difference between the two is likely in what their duties are, not in how their resignation is accepted. Often, when a employee is hired, there is a piece of paper they sign that says something along the lines of the employee can quit at any time and the employer can terminate their employment for any cause or for no cause at all. There may be some requirement for some length of notice on the part of either the employee or employer. If the employee gives his two weeks notice (or whatever is required), voting to excuse him from duty is unnecessary because his "duty" doesn't extend past the end of his two week notice. But if the employee signed on without something saying how he can quit, a resignation and a vote to accept the resignation would be required. (Of course, his "duty" would still not extend past whatever any applicable law required of him.)

[Edgar Guest]

I see no reason to think that a request to be excused from duty should be handled differently for an employee than for a member.

 

Really? Not even one?

[Richard Brown]

I see no reason to think that a request to be excused from duty should be handled differently for an employee than for a member.

Really?  It must be handled differently because the procedure by which an employee quits is not a matter of parliamentary procedure but is a legal matter involving employer-employee relations and/or contract law.   The provisions in RONR re a request to be excused from a duty state repeatedly that they apply to members of the organization.

 

From page 71:  "A member may Request to Be Excused from a Duty (32) if he wishes to be relieved from an obligation imposed upon [page 72] him by the bylaws or by virtue of some position or office he holds."

 

From page 279: 

 

"§32. REQUEST TO BE EXCUSED FROM A DUTY

"Occasionally the bylaws of a society may impose specific duties on members beyond the mere payment of dues. Members may be obligated to attend a certain number of meetings, to prepare talks or papers, to serve on committees, or even to accept office if elected. In these cases, a member cannot, as a matter of right, decline such a duty or demand that he or she be excused from it, but the assembly—except as the bylaws may provide otherwise—can grant the member's request to be so excused. The request can be granted by unanimous consent, or a motion to grant it, which is debatable and amendable, can be offered."

 

It seems clear that the parliamentary motion to be excused from a duty applies to MEMBERS of the society.  There is not even a hint in the section on Request to be Excused from a Duty that it applies to EMPLOYEES of an organization.  It clearly applies to members.   The rules of order of a deliberative assembly apply to members of the society and address relations between the society and its members.  That is made plain repeatedly throughout RONR from the preface through the introduction and the rules themselves.

 

 But if the employee signed on without something saying how he can quit, a resignation and a vote to accept the resignation would be required.

I completely disagree, for many reasons.  Again, employer-employee relations are legal matters governed by contract law and/or state statutes on employer-employee relations and rights, not Robert's Rules of Order.   In an employment at will state, like the two states I have lived in, an employee can quit at any time for any reason with or without notice.   There is certainly no requirement that the society or its board vote on allowing such an employee to quit.  The employee can simply say "I quit" and wave bye-bye as he walks out the door.

 

I don't see how there can be any doubt that this is a legal matter, not a parliamentary matter, except possibly to the very limited extent that there might be a written contract of employment which requires that the society itself consent to the employee quitting prior to the expiration of the contract....and in that case, the only connection  to parliamentary procedure I can see is the question of whether the board is authorized to accept the resignation on behalf of the society or if the general membership would have to vote on the issue.  There is absolutely no evidence, however, that there is such a requirement in this case based on the information provided by the original poster.