Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest SheliaS

Changing accepted nomination from previous vote

Recommended Posts

Guest SheliaS

In a previous meeting, a nomination was made for office and was accepted and voted on. That person is supposed to take office in November. Can that final decision be changed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest SheliaS said:

In a previous meeting, a nomination was made for office and was accepted and voted on. That person is supposed to take office in November. Can that final decision be changed?

It can be changed only in the sense that the person elected can refuse to take office or can submit a resignation immediately upon taking office and hope that it will be accepted.  But, if it is members of the organization, rather than the newly elected officer, who have "changed their minds", I'm afraid you are stuck with the outcome of the election unless there are grounds to institute disciplinary action or to remove the member from office.   Or to try to convince him to resign.

A little more information may help us to give you a better answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question of timing.

If the election was held "last meeting" (say, August), and if the electee is scheduled to take office in November  (three months hence), then this person is not an officer, and holds no office.

In general, if you elect a person to a potential office, and that person is not yet in that office, then there is time to rescind the election. -- In my opinion.

***

The default rule in Robert's Rules of Order assumes that the election's finality puts the electee into office.

But since the default condition does not exist in this case, then there should be a normal parliamentary solution.

***

Example:

Assume an ordinary committee (call it the Big Committee).

Assume the board appoints the committee.

Assume this board wishes to grant a favorable status to certain key senior members of the organization, so the board adopts a resolution, place these key people on the committee in succeeding years, a resolution which might be worded akin to this:
 

Quote

 

Resolved, that Mr. Alpha chair the Big Committee in 2017, and

That Mr. Bravo chair the Big Committee in 2018, and

That Mr. Charlie chair the Big Committee in 2019.

 

Q. Now, if Mr. Bravo were to disgrace himself in 2016 or 2017, are the hands (of the board) tied, and is the board forced to sit by and do nothing?

No, of course not.

Mr. Bravo is not in any elected position now, and won't be until 2018.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

A question of timing.

If the election was held "last meeting" (say, August), and if the electee is scheduled to take office in November  (three months hence), then this person is not an officer, and holds no office.

In general, if you elect a person to a potential office, and that person is not yet in that office, then there is time to rescind the election. -- In my opinion.

But what is the basis for such an opinion?

There can be no doubt but that, under the rules in RONR (11th ed., p. 308), a motion to Rescind is not in order when a person has been elected to office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 308 letter "c" applies then the "elected/expelled to/from membership" or "elected/expelled to/from office" has been fulfilled or executed, and not when there is a delay.

RONR's default assumptions are that there are no provisos, and no unique delay-causing rules, between

   (a.) the act of adoption; and

   (b.) the enforceability of the motion/election.

As page 308 refers to page 653-54, note that you cannot use page 653-54 for either case of page 308, because the targeted party isn't yet a member, or isn't yet in office. So there is nothing [no one] to remove.  -- You cannot un-member a nonmember. -- You cannot remove from office he who is not in office.

So there must be an alternative equivalent to pages 653 ff., since 653 ff. does not apply.

***

It would be ludicrous to suggest to the original poster: "Wait three months. Do the installation ceremony. And only then, invoke the removal process of page 653 ff."

That does not make sense on any level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Page 308 letter "c" applies then the "elected/expelled to/from membership" or "elected/expelled to/from office" has been fulfilled or executed, and not when there is a delay.

RONR's default assumptions are that there are no provisos, and no unique delay-causing rules, between

   (a.) the act of adoption; and

   (b.) the enforceability of the motion/election.

As page 308 refers to page 653-54, note that you cannot use page 653-54 for either case of page 308, because the targeted party isn't yet a member, or isn't yet in office. So there is nothing [no one] to remove.  -- You cannot un-member a nonmember. -- You cannot remove from office he who is not in office.

So there must be an alternative equivalent to pages 653 ff., since 653 ff. does not apply.

***

It would be ludicrous to suggest to the original poster: "Wait three months. Do the installation ceremony. And only then, invoke the removal process of page 653 ff."

That does not make sense on any level.

I have no idea where one might get the notion that a person cannot be removed from the position of officer-elect, and I'm quite sure that it makes no sense at all to assert that RONR does not mean what it says when it says that a motion to Rescind is not in order when a person has been elected to office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I have no idea where one might get the notion that a person cannot be removed from the position of officer-elect, and I'm quite sure that it makes no sense at all to assert that RONR does not mean what it says when it says that a motion to Rescind is not in order when a person has been elected to office, and the person was present or has been officially notified of the action.

Then your answer to the original poster would indeed be _____ ?

>> "Wait three months. Do the installation ceremony. And only then, invoke the removal process of page 653 ff."

***

I must ask you:

Q. If the organization can remove the elected party in 3 months, then why cannot the organization remove the elected party in two months, or one month?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Q. If the organization can remove the elected party in 3 months, then why cannot the organization remove the elected party in two months, or one month?

 

Dan never said they couldn't (and his most recent reply implies that they can). he just said they can't use Rescind to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

I must ask you:

Q. If the organization can remove the elected party in 3 months, then why cannot the organization remove the elected party in two months, or one month?

They can.

As I said, I have no idea where one might get the notion that a person cannot be removed from the position of officer-elect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Q. If not "rescind", then what is the motion to remove an officer-elect?

It cannot be the disciplinary chapter, because

   (a.) the electee is not in office, and

   (b.) no fixed term of office is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The procedure to be followed in removing a person from an office to which he has been regularly elected is the procedure set forth in the last Chapter of RONR. The fact that, under the organization's bylaws or other rules, he will not take possession of that office until sometime after his election to it is irrelevant.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at the relevant disciplinary chapter's text.

Quote

 

*****************************************
>> TENTH ED <<

Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regu-
larly elected officer of a permanent society can be deposed
from office for cause--that is, misconduct or neglect of
duty in office--as follows:

* If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __
years or until their successors are elected,” the election
of the officer in question can be rescinded and a succes-
sor can thereafter be elected for the remainder of the
term.
The vote required for removing the offender from
office in such a case is the same as for any other motion
to Rescind (35).
********************************************
>> ELEVENTH ED >>

Except as the bylaws may provide otherwise, any regularly
elected officer of a permanent society can be removed from
office by the society’s assembly as follows:

• If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for  __   years
or until their successors are elected,” the officer in ques-
tion can be removed from office by adoption of a motion
to do so.
The vote required for adoption of such a mo‑    
tion is (a) a two‑thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when pre-
vious notice (as defined on p. 121) has been given, or (c)
a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one
of which will suffice. A motion to remove an officer from
office is a question of privilege (19) affecting the organi-
zation of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any
vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion.*
********************************************

 

Review:

   S1.) Per the 1990 Tenth edition, a motion To Rescind is sufficient.

   S2.) Per the 2000 Eleventh edition, a motion "That Mr. X be removed from P" is sufficient.

***

Q. So, for the original poster's scenario,

where there is officer-elect being targeted,

who has not yet taken office,

and who has not yet entered into a term of office,

is statement S2 the parliamentary solution?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Let's look at the relevant disciplinary chapter's text.

Review:

   S1.) Per the 1990 Tenth edition, a motion To Rescind is sufficient.

   S2.) Per the 2000 Eleventh edition, a motion "That Mr. X be removed from P" is sufficient.

***

Q. So, for the original poster's scenario,

where there is officer-elect being targeted,

who has not yet taken office,

and who has not yet entered into a term of office,

is statement S2 the parliamentary solution?

 

When I said that the procedure to be followed in removing a person from an office to which he has been regularly elected is the procedure set forth in the last Chapter of RONR, I was referring to the current edition. I assumed that this would be understood (isn't this the Advanced Discussion Forum?), but apparently I assumed too much. 

And you ought to get the years of publication straightened out.  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...