Absentee withdraws consent to election

[Alex Meed]

In accordance with its bylaws, an organization takes nominees for office at the regular meeting before the one at which it elects officers. At the nomination meeting, a candidate is nominated and consents to her candidacy. In the interim, the candidate informs the Secretary that she no longer wishes to be considered for the position. At the election meeting, she is absent, and the Secretary informs the membership of the candidate's wishes. Nevertheless, she is elected.

In light of the provisions of RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 18–25, does the election take effect immediately, or is the officer-elect notified of her election and allowed to immediately decline? If the former, what is the officer-elect's recourse if she does not wish to perform the duties of the office, if the bylaws provide that the officer-elect takes office immediately? What about if the bylaws prescribe some future date (which has not yet passed) for the officer-elect to take office?

Inspired by true events, though this exact fact pattern has yet to arise in our society (and hopefully won't).

Edited November 22, 2019 at 11:09 PM by Alex M.
Clarify that the candidate initially consented to her candidacy

[Rob Elsman]

If the winner is absent, the Secretary notifies the winner in writing, and the winner may immediately decline. If so, the election is incomplete, and voting resumes at the next meeting without notice.

[Atul Kapur]

At the time of the election, she had withdrawn her consent. The Secretary informed the assembly of that fact. So when she is notified of her election, she immediately declines and the election is incomplete. She does not have to resign as she never held the office, no matter when the term begins.

Same rule as in real life: if consent is withdrawn, there is no consent. Don't act without consent. No means No.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Elsman.   There is no need for a nominee to consent to being nominated, and no mechanism to withdraw such consent.  The rules in RONR say that if a candidate, is elected while absent, the candidate may decline immediately or accept, upon being notified of the results of the election.  

This rule is not conditioned upon the member having been nominated or not, only upon being elected and being absent.  There is no problem with the secretary communicating her wishes not to be elected, but if she is elected anyway, I believe the rule applies.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

If the winner is absent, the Secretary notifies the winner in writing,

I'm curious why you specified "in writing." I don't see that in the book.

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no need for a nominee to consent to being nominated, and no mechanism to withdraw such consent. 

A member may be nominated without her consent -- according to some other threads on this forum (I am a fan of the custom of asking the nominee's consent).

However the consent or lack thereof is relevant as it applies to her election, particularly if she is absent. If she consented beforehand, her election is final once the result is announced. If, as in this case, she has not consented to her candidacy, then the notification provision applies.

[Rob Elsman]

As an official act of the society, would you think communicating something like this over the phone would be appropriate?

[Atul Kapur]

Sure, or in person. Why not? You can follow it up in writing if you wish.

I think timeliness would be a very good thing, particularly if you want to ensure the election is complete or conduct another ballot at the same meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

As an official act of the society, would you think communicating something like this over the phone would be appropriate?

I think that would be okay.  If the winner could be reached immediately, there would still be time for a second ballot in the event the winner declined.  That's a better outcome than scheduling a follow-up meeting to complete the election.

OOps, I see Atul said essentially the same thing.  And messages can't be deleted for some reason.

Edited November 23, 2019 at 03:54 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

As an official act of the society, would you think communicating something like this over the phone would be appropriate?

 

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Sure, or in person. Why not? You can follow it up in writing if you wish.

I think timeliness would be a very good thing, particularly if you want to ensure the election is complete or conduct another ballot at the same meeting.

I agree with Dr. Kapur.  I think time is of the essence and that by phone is actually better than mail in this case.  Perhaps email would be a reasonable compromise if someone wants something "in writing".   I really see no need to "inform" the newly elected officer "in writing".  RONR certainly does not require that it be in writing.

Edited November 23, 2019 at 05:24 AM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence