Reverse or overturn an election

[Guest Oliver]

Our Bylaws state   "or until a successor is elected" which , if I read the FAQ # 20 correctly, allows us to  remove them from office with a majority present if notice is given.  My main concern or confusion is this-what if they have not yet been installed? Can we reverse the election and vote another in instead?   Here is a bit of information to help clarify the reason for looking into this:  I am the current President and they are President elect. Since the election, their behavior at meetings has become much worse than usual.  They literally  take over and read from the agenda in an attempt to run the meeting, attempts to open the meeting up after we adjourned (they thought there was something else needing to be discussed) , openly disrespectful to me and snapping at other officers when they try to get them to follow protocol.
We do have behavior guidelines in place but no set rules in place as to how to remove someone from office
I want to be sure that this is done properly and fairly for all involved

[Dan Honemann]

Why do you say that "they" (really?) have not yet been installed? Aren't "they" currently serving in the office of president-elect? 

[jstackpo]

Is "they" the (awful) pseudo-grammatical equivalent of "he or she"?    Is the office of "President-Elect" defined in the bylaws?  Or is there just a bylaw defined delay between the election and the new officer(s) assuming  his/her/their  office(s)?

[Guest Oliver]

We hold our election a few months before we are actually installed and assume office. This person is currently the VP.

[jstackpo]

But...  is there an office of "President-Elect" officially defined in your Bylaws?

[Richard Brown]

Guest Oliver , what exactly do your bylaws say about when the terms if office begin?

[Dan Honemann]

According to the rules in RONR (p.444), "An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time. If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office."

If, in fact, your bylaws actually provide that your vice-president, who has now been elected to the office of president, does not assume this new office until months after his election has become final, it would appear that he now occupies the office of "officer-elect" (as that term is used in the passage quoted above), as well as the office of vice-president.  Assuming (a BIG assumption) that the "or until a successor is elected" language in your bylaws applies to this office of "officer-elect", then it would appear that he can be removed from this office of "officer-elect" by adoption of a motion to remove him.

 

[Guest Oliver]

There is nothing in our Bylaws relating to an elect position. It is not an actual office for us. The term of office begins in June at our regular meeting. Our bylaws say a specific time frame for term of office "or until a successor is elected". Since the behavior guidelines have been violated numerous times over a period of time, would that be something we can pursue as well?

 

Thank  you!

[Dan Honemann]

Well, once he has assumed the office of president in June, the question which is concerning you now will disappear.

[Guest Oliver]

Our bylaws state that we follow Robert's Rules so, then, even though elect positions are not stipulated in the bylaws, each officer holds that "office" until the installation at our June meeting (since it is stated in RONR  )?  

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, Guest Oliver said:

Our bylaws state that we follow Robert's Rules so, then, even though elect positions are not stipulated in the bylaws, each officer holds that "office" until the installation at our June meeting (since it is stated in RONR  )?  

I gather there's a question in here somewhere, but I don't know what it is. In any event, your bylaws obviously depart from the rules in RONR in this connection (time of assuming office), and so I think that the answer to most of your questions will depend upon a proper interpretation of these bylaw provisions..

[Guest oliver]

Since our Bylaws do not mention any elect position specifically, then we adhere to RONR which states that there is one.  Does this mean that the membership can hold a special meeting to remove this person from the elect position before our next regular meeting and hold a new vote to fill the office of President ? 

 

Thank  you!

[Dan Honemann]

14 minutes ago, Guest oliver said:

Since our Bylaws do not mention any elect position specifically, then we adhere to RONR which states that there is one.  Does this mean that the membership can hold a special meeting to remove this person from the elect position before our next regular meeting and hold a new vote to fill the office of President ? 

I don't know, but if your next regular meeting is the one at which he (or she, which is it?) assumes office, why not wait until then?

[Guest Oliver]

Because they get installed and seated  and guests will be present again which causes further embarrassment.  This meeting will have members only present which will help keep this private

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest oliver said:

Since our Bylaws do not mention any elect position specifically, then we adhere to RONR which states that there is one. 

No, RONR does not say any such thing. RONR does have a “President Elect” position, but this is something completely different from what you describe here. The position of “President Elect” is an actual elected office. The bylaws generally provide that this person, upon the completion of his term as President Elect, automatically becomes President.

RONR does not have “officer” positions for a person who is (for example) elected as President but does not take office until several months later, because so far as RONR is concerned, newly elected officers take office immediately.

1 hour ago, Guest oliver said:

Does this mean that the membership can hold a special meeting to remove this person from the elect position before our next regular meeting and hold a new vote to fill the office of President ? 

It will ultimately be up to the society itself to interpret its own bylaws to determine whether it is possible to remove a person from an office prior to the person actually being in that office.

59 minutes ago, Guest Oliver said:

Because they get installed and seated  and guests will be present again which causes further embarrassment.  This meeting will have members only present which will help keep this private

Would it be possible to call a special meeting for a date after this person takes office but before the regular meeting in June? That would seem to resolve all issues.

“If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 444)

[Dan Honemann]

16 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

No, RONR does not say any such thing. RONR does have a “President Elect” position, but this is something completely different from what you describe here. The position of “President Elect” is an actual elected office. The bylaws generally provide that this person, upon the completion of his term as President Elect, automatically becomes President.

RONR does not have “officer” positions for a person who is (for example) elected as President but does not take office until several months later, because so far as RONR is concerned, newly elected officers take office immediately.

So I gather you do not share my view that, when RONR refers to a person whose election to an office has become final but who, because of the organization's applicable rules, does not assume that office until a later date as an "officer-elect", this means that such a person holds an office of some sort during the interval between election and assumption of office.

Well, I can't say that I blame you.  🙂

[Richard Brown]

13 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

So I gather you do not share my view that, when RONR refers to a person whose election to an office has become final but who, because of the organization's applicable rules, does not assume that office until a later date as an "officer-elect", this means that such a person holds an office of some sort during the interval between election and assumption of office.

Well, I can't say that I blame you.  🙂

I  was surprised when you opined earlier that RONR seems to create this "officer elect" position.  I know your question is directed to Josh, but I for one am having a hard time agreeing that RONR creates the position of "officer-elect".  I can accept the premise that a person who has been elected but has not yet assumed office can be removed from office as if he was already in office, but I disagree with the premise that RONR actually creates an "officer-elect" position.  I think it is used as a descriptive term, not to define or to create an "office".

Edited May 20, 2019 at 05:03 PM by Richard Brown
Added underlined text in last sentence

[Drake Savory]

Best I can translate this is:

We elected someone for President but his term has not started yet.  If we no longer want him to become President can we do something to prevent him from becoming President?

 

 

[Guest Oliver]

Unfortunately,  Officers take office immediately after the June meeting ends as per our bylaws. We are just not sure what, if any, options we have.

[Dan Honemann]

8 minutes ago, Guest Oliver said:

Unfortunately,  Officers take office immediately after the June meeting ends as per our bylaws. We are just not sure what, if any, options we have.

I'm not either, but I still think that an "officer-elect" (within the meaning of what is said on page 444 of RONR), holds an office (or position, or whatever you want to call it) from which he can be removed. The question as to whether or not the procedure described on page 653, line 27 to page 654, line 3 is available depends upon a proper interpretation of the bylaws.

[J. J.]

24 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm not either, but I still think that an "officer-elect" (within the meaning of what is said on page 444 of RONR), holds an office (or position, or whatever you want to call it) from which he can be removed. The question as to whether or not the procedure described on page 653, line 27 to page 654, line 3 is available depends upon a proper interpretation of the bylaws.

I think p. 308, ll. 25 does speak to it, clearly.  It notes that  when "a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office..." and is present or has been  notified that act cannot be rescinded (with exceptions noted). 

The person, in this case, may not be holding office, but clearly has been "elected to" office.  Based on that, disciplinary action could be applied to people elected to, but not yet holding, office.  That would be enough to show that someone elected to, but not yet holding, office may be removed as per Chapter XX.

I do have a problem with calling it the "position" or "office,"  because those things would need to be expressed in bylaws and standing rules.  The difference is one of vocabulary. 

 

[Ann Rempel]

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

The person, in this case, may not be holding office, but clearly has been "elected to" office.  Based on that, disciplinary action could be applied to people elected to, but not yet holding, office.  That would be enough to show that someone elected to, but not yet holding, office may be removed as per Chapter XX.

I do have a problem with calling it the "position" or "office,"  because those things would need to be expressed in bylaws and standing rules.  The difference is one of vocabulary.

I agree that a person elected to, but not yet holding the office may be removed. 

I have no problem, though, calling it an "office-elect" since that is common sense language to describe the situation. Or maybe it should be "office-in-limbo." Anyway, Dan's office-elect interpretation didn't bother me at all and I thought it very sensible.

 

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

So I gather you do not share my view that, when RONR refers to a person whose election to an office has become final but who, because of the organization's applicable rules, does not assume that office until a later date as an "officer-elect", this means that such a person holds an office of some sort during the interval between election and assumption of office.

Well, I can't say that I blame you.  🙂

No, I do not share this view. It seems to me that a person who is elected to an office but does not assume that office until a later date does not hold an “officer-elect” office in the interim unless the organization’s rules so provide.

I am more inclined to concur with JJ’s view that the person holds no office, but that he may be preemptively removed from the office he has been elected to but does not yet hold, and that describing this person as the “President-Elect” is simply a description of the fact that he has been elected to serve as President but has not yet assumed that office, and is not an office in and of itself.

[Gary Novosielski]

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

So I gather you do not share my view that, when RONR refers to a person whose election to an office has become final but who, because of the organization's applicable rules, does not assume that office until a later date as an "officer-elect", this means that such a person holds an office of some sort during the interval between election and assumption of office.

Well, I can't say that I blame you.  🙂

I think that's stretching it, but I'd never say so.

Ooops, did I type that out loud?

[J. J.]

How  does the term "officer to be" work, instead of "officer elect."