Resignation

[Attajb]

If a member of a Board of Directors sends their resignation to everyone on the Board via email 1)Do we have to give them a certain amount of time to rescind their resignation. 

2)Can they rescind their resignation.

 

[George Mervosh]

1) No. 

2) Rescind? No. Withdraw? Maybe.  

See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#18

 

Edited January 12, 2017 at 03:49 PM by George Mervosh

[Attajb]

Our Bylaws state : Written Resignations, Resignations of Directors, officers, council members and committee members shall be in writing (post, e-mail), and shall take effect upon receipt by the Board of Directors.

This email was sent to all Directors  so as per our Bylaws it is in effect correct we do not have to wait to next meeting?

But any withdrawal would have to be voted on at the next meeting. Am I correct?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Is "receipt" when the resignation shows up in everyone's inbox? Is it when the resignation is announced at the next board meeting? It's up to your organization to decide what this bylaw means.

[Attajb]

The Bylaws state specifically in them, when received in writing (Post or Email )not when announced. I posted above, word for word the Bylaws section on Resignations 

[Kim Goldsworthy]

27 minutes ago, Attajb said:

Our Bylaws state :

Written Resignations, Resignations of Directors, officers, council members and committee members shall be in writing (post, e-mail), and shall take effect upon receipt by the Board of Directors.

Q1.) This email was sent to all Directors  so as per our Bylaws it is in effect correct? We do not have to wait to next meeting?

Q2.) But any withdrawal would have to be voted on at the next meeting. Am I correct?

A1.) Per your customized rule, there is no "voting", only "receipt", to trigger the net effect. So, you don't have to wait for any kind of meeting. You don't need a meeting for a "receipt" of a written communication.

A2.) Impossible. There is no withdrawal possible, per your own rule. A withdrawal would imply that X has not been completed/fulfilled. And here, X was completed upon receipt.

[George Mervosh]

55 minutes ago, Attajb said:

Our Bylaws state :

 

35 minutes ago, Attajb said:

The Bylaws state specifically in them, 

Would it be bluntly incivil to suggest that post #1 should have been clear that you wanted us to interpret your bylaws?

[Richard Brown]

45 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

A1.) Per your customized rule, there is no "voting", only "receipt", to trigger the net effect. So, you don't have to wait for any kind of meeting. You don't need a meeting for a "receipt" of a written communication.

A2.) Impossible. There is no withdrawal possible, per your own rule. A withdrawal would imply that X has not been completed/fulfilled. And here, X was completed upon receipt.

I concur, but would point out that this is actually a matter of bylaws interpretation and it is up to the organization itself to determine what the provisions mean.

[Attajb]

9 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

 

Would it be bluntly incivil to suggest that post #1 should have been clear that you wanted us to interpret your bylaws?

I do not see it that way our Bylaws are silent on that fact, and it was a question that was ask. I was just looking for clarification 

[Gary Novosielski]

15 hours ago, Attajb said:

The Bylaws state specifically in them, when received in writing (Post or Email )not when announced. I posted above, word for word the Bylaws section on Resignations 

It could be still be argued that they did not say "received by every member of the Board" and that the Board per se, does not exist except while it is in session, so that while individual members may know, the Board itself has not been informed until an announcement is made during a meeting.

I'm not saying I'd argue that, but if I were seeking to withdraw a rash resignation letter, I might try it.

[Gary c Tesser]

On 1/12/2017 at 1:08 PM, Attajb said:

our Bylaws are silent on that fact,

But Attajb, no, the bylaws are not silent.  Here is what you told us that they say, followed by your asking two questions that call for us parliamentarians (including aspiring parliamentarians like me) to tell you what these bylaws mean :

On 1/12/2017 at 11:27 AM, Attajb said:

Our Bylaws state : Written Resignations, Resignations of Directors, officers, council members and committee members shall be in writing (post, e-mail), and shall take effect upon receipt by the Board of Directors.

This email was sent to all Directors  so as per our Bylaws it is in effect correct we do not have to wait to next meeting?

But any withdrawal would have to be voted on at the next meeting. Am I correct?

-- .  Of course,it's no crime to ask.  Often parliamentarians (so I'm told) are actually hired by organizations specifically to provide experienced advice on what bylaws mean.  But when they do that, they are giving advice, and only giving advice:  only the organization itself can interpret ambiguities in its own rules (especially its bylaws)

For that matter, at this point I strongly suspect that you did not think, with your first post, that you were asking for an interpretation of your bylaws.  I infer, having known him for some sixteen years now, that George Mervosh's reply was predicated on the standard assumption that you're asking what Robert's Rules says, so that's what he gave you.  When you replied, informing us that your bylaws make the situation different, I imagine he felt blindsided, hence his grumpy (or testy, I forget which is which) snipe, which of course could just as easily be accounted for by his posting at 12:25 PM, which is past his bedtime.

But -- and I presume (making a PRES out of U and ME) that you're new enough to this, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum (so I keep telling people, but where does it get me?) -- that you are probably unaware of our custom (or rule), here, to assiduously avoid (or refrain from, I forget which is which) interpreting bylaws that we haven't even read thoroughly (which is essential, since excerpts can sometimes leave significant stuff out) (except sometimes some of us do, when our resident reprobates suss out that they can get away with it).

You should also know that Mr. Mervosh's saying "bluntly incivil" was probably an in-joke (and, looking it up just now, I realize to my horror that "incivil" is probably a misspelling).

Edited January 14, 2017 at 12:43 AM by Gary c Tesser
copyediting

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/13/2017 at 7:40 PM, Gary c Tesser said:

this, the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum (so I keep telling people, but where does it get me?)

It might get you further if you didn't keep misspelling "premier".

[Attajb]

On 1/15/2017 at 6:37 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

It might get you further if you didn't keep misspelling "premier".

?

[Gary c Tesser]

On 1/15/2017 at 6:37 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

It might get you further if you didn't keep misspelling "premier".

On 1/21/2017 at 10:02 PM, Attajb said:

?

After a week, that's what's on your mind??!?  My arguable misspelling??

What about those resignations and purported resindignations, if that's a word, or either way a possible deed, or whatnot?

(Now I fear arousing Shmuel Gerber's indignant resindignation.)

(You know, he's a dagnab Moderator, he should dagnab well be able to tell the software to stop signalling "Shmuel" and "Gerber" as misspellings.  Unlike the dubious and perhaps contentions or arguably despicable "premiere" alleged misspelling.  And I got other thintw to gripe about, and I hope Chris H is enjoying it -- or revelling in it, I forget which is which, wherever he is, I can't keep track any more, not to mention that insufferably peregrinating Josh who used to just be somewhere in Minnesota, then somehow got to be in incomprehensibly MIdwest Brooklyn and then meandered offwhere.  Dammit you people please keep stuck somewheres.  I got enough trouble trying to remember that RONR 11 purports to have differences from RONR 10 aside from what we on the world's premier [sid] Internet parliamentary forum were yammering at them about for ten years or so.

(But at least we got Donald Trump elected president of the US.  So everything'sgoing to be fin now.)

Edited January 23, 2017 at 04:54 AM by Gary c Tesser
apprehension