resignation of an officer

[Guest guest]

An officer resigned in writing effective 30 days and gave to their president as required by their bylaws.  The position that officer held is an appointed position (appointed by president) per bylaws; therefore, 30 days notice was provided to allow time for a new appointment by the president.  30 days has come and gone; and there has been no new appointment made either unofficially or officially.  Where does that leave the officer that resigned when the bylaws also state no officer can "abandon" a position?  If that officer no longer participates since it is now beyond 30 days, is this considered "abandonment"?  

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest guest said:

An officer resigned in writing effective 30 days and gave to their president as required by their bylaws.  The position that officer held is an appointed position (appointed by president) per bylaws; therefore, 30 days notice was provided to allow time for a new appointment by the president.  30 days has come and gone; and there has been no new appointment made either unofficially or officially.  Where does that leave the officer that resigned when the bylaws also state no officer can "abandon" a position?  If that officer no longer participates since it is now beyond 30 days, is this considered "abandonment"?  

Was the resignation accepted by the President? If so, then so far as RONR is concerned, the person is no longer in office. If not, the person is still in office.

"If a member who has accepted an office, committee assignment, or other duty finds that he is unable to perform it, he should submit his resignation. A resignation is submitted in writing, addressed to the secretary or appointing power; alternatively, it may be submitted during a meeting either orally or in writing. By submitting a resignation, the member is, in effect, requesting to be excused from a duty. The chair, on reading or announcing the resignation, can assume a motion “that the resignation be accepted.”

The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted." RONR (12th ed.) 32:5-6

I can't speak to what the "abandonment" rule in your bylaws means. That will be up to your society to determine. In my view, however, the officer satisfied the rule in RONR. It seems to me that in a situation where a position is unilaterally appointed by (and therefore the resignation can be unilaterally accepted by) a single person, 30 days is generally "a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted."

I would also note that, as a practical matter, you can't really force someone to continue serving in an office against their will. Unless the officer has changed their mind or it is desired to pursue disciplinary action against this person instead, the resignation should promptly be accepted if this has not already been done.

Edited October 8, 2020 at 04:46 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest guest]

it was stated that it was not accepted by the president when the officer submitted it in writing.  This was over 30 days ago and still no word from the president.  So, does this mean this officer is still in that role and held hostage to it?  

What should they do now since it is beyond 30 days and still hasn't been formally accepted nor the Executive Board notified of the written resignation's existence?

[Guest guest]

The president did not accept the resignation.  The president just stated "well I have 30 days".  It is beyond 30 days and still no acceptance or new appointment.  The executive board has not even been informed of the written resignation.  What would you recommend the officer do since it has not been accepted by the president, and it is beyond 30 days?  Also, should the officer still attend executive board meetings beyond these 30 days?  It seems like the officer is being held hostage by the president. 

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

The president did not accept the resignation.  The president just stated "well I have 30 days".  It is beyond 30 days and still no acceptance or new appointment.  The executive board has not even been informed of the written resignation.  What would you recommend the officer do since it has not been accepted by the president, and it is beyond 30 days?  Also, should the officer still attend executive board meetings beyond these 30 days?  It seems like the officer is being held hostage by the president. 

In my  opinion the president has had ample opportunity to accept the resignation and even acknowledged that he had 30 days in which to do so.  If it has been over 30 days, I think the officer who was resigning is entitled to take the position that his resignation is effective and that he is no longer under any obligation to perform any duties associated with that office, other, perhaps, than turning over files and property of the organization in his possession  

[Guest guest]

thank you Richard.  Would you recommend the officer send over the files to the president at this time or continue to hold on to them till someone is appointed? 

[Richard Brown]

3 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

thank you Richard.  Would you recommend the officer send over the files to the president at this time or continue to hold on to them till someone is appointed? 

I would turn them over to either the president or the secretary if no successor has yet been appointed. 

Edited October 8, 2020 at 05:40 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Josh Martin]

37 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

it was stated that it was not accepted by the president when the officer submitted it in writing.  This was over 30 days ago and still no word from the president.  So, does this mean this officer is still in that role and held hostage to it?  

So far as RONR is concerned, in my view, the officer is still in the role but is not "held hostage to it."

38 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

What should they do now since it is beyond 30 days and still hasn't been formally accepted nor the Executive Board notified of the written resignation's existence?

I do not think the officer, at this time, is obligated to perform the duties of the office under the rules in RONR, but I don't know whether the rule in your bylaws on this subject complicates things. In any event, it would seem prudent to submit the resignation again, and CC the rest of the Executive Board this time.

29 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

 Also, should the officer still attend executive board meetings beyond these 30 days?

That is at the officer's discretion.

16 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

In my  opinion the president has had ample opportunity to accept the resignation and even acknowledged that he had 30 days in which to do so.  If it has been over 30 days, I think the officer who was resigning is entitled to take the position that his resignation is effective and that he is no longer under any obligation to perform any duties associated with that office, other, perhaps, than turning over files and property of the organization in his possession  

I would disagree slightly. As I read the relevant rules in RONR on this subject, the resignation of an officer does not, in fact, become effective until the resignation has been accepted, however, if there is a reasonable opportunity for the resignation to be accepted, the officer is no longer under any obligation to perform any duties associated with the office (except, as you say, duties relating to the transition).

I also don't know how the organization's rules on this subject may affect matters. The rule in RONR says that "The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted," but I don't know that there is a similar escape clause in the "abandonment" rule in the organization's bylaws.

[Guest guest]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Was the resignation accepted by the President? If so, then so far as RONR is concerned, the person is no longer in office. If not, the person is still in office.

"If a member who has accepted an office, committee assignment, or other duty finds that he is unable to perform it, he should submit his resignation. A resignation is submitted in writing, addressed to the secretary or appointing power; alternatively, it may be submitted during a meeting either orally or in writing. By submitting a resignation, the member is, in effect, requesting to be excused from a duty. The chair, on reading or announcing the resignation, can assume a motion “that the resignation be accepted.”

The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted." RONR (12th ed.) 32:5-6

I can't speak to what the "abandonment" rule in your bylaws means. That will be up to your society to determine. In my view, however, the officer satisfied the rule in RONR. It seems to me that in a situation where a position is unilaterally appointed by (and therefore the resignation can be unilaterally accepted by) a single person, 30 days is generally "a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted."

I would also note that, as a practical matter, you can't really force someone to continue serving in an office against their will. Unless the officer has changed their mind or it is desired to pursue disciplinary action against this person instead, the resignation should promptly be accepted if this has not already been done.

could the officer be disciplined for leaving the role and 30 days has passed?

The exact wording of the bylaw states "an officer who is unable/unwilling to perform the duties of the office will submit a written resignation to the president.  The duties of an office must not be abandoned until resignation has been accepted."  

So, do you think it best for the officer to resend the resignation and cc the executive board as a way of bringing it back up?  otherwise it appears it will be ignored as the days progress.  

 

[Josh Martin]

6 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

could the officer be disciplined for leaving the role and 30 days has passed?

The exact wording of the bylaw states "an officer who is unable/unwilling to perform the duties of the office will submit a written resignation to the president.  The duties of an office must not be abandoned until resignation has been accepted."  

I do not think that the officer should be disciplined for failing to perform the duties of the office at this time, at least so far as the rules of RONR are concerned, because in my view, the officer has given "a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted."

The rule in your bylaws, however, apparently provides that "an officer who is unable/unwilling to perform the duties of the office will submit a written resignation to the president.  The duties of an office must not be abandoned until resignation has been accepted." While it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws, it would seem on the face of it that your bylaws prohibit an officer from abandoning the duties of an office until the resignation has been accepted. Unlike RONR, the rule does not seem to provide an alternative in cases where the appointing authority refuses to accept the resignation or fails to act upon the resignation in a timely manner. As a result, it may well be that officers in your organization can indeed be "held hostage" in their offices, under threat of disciplinary action.

Additionally, in any event, it is ultimately up to the society (or whatever body may be authorized to take disciplinary action in the bylaws) to decide whether disciplinary action is warranted in a particular instance.

12 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

So, do you think it best for the officer to resend the resignation and cc the executive board as a way of bringing it back up?  otherwise it appears it will be ignored as the days progress.  

This would seem to be a prudent course of action to me. Perhaps the Executive Board is more reasonable in this manner and can prevail upon the President to accept the resignation and appoint a replacement.

[Richard Brown]

16 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

could the officer be disciplined for leaving the role and 30 days has passed?

Under your bylaw provisions, I suppose that is conceivable.  However, based on what we have been told, I would personally be more inclined to want to discipline or at least censure the president for ignoring or "sitting on" the resignation in an attempt to hold the officer in limbo or, at worst, to coerce or compel him to continue to perform the duties of the office against his will when the officer gave ample notice of his resignation and the president has had ample opportunity to act on it.  He is in essence holding the officer hostage.  At a minimum, the president should have either accepted the resignation by now or should have reached out to the officer to ask him to stay in the position a short time longer to allow more time to find a replacement.  Perhaps he has done that.  We have no  way of knowing.

Ultimately, since this provision is in your bylaws, it is up to the members of your organization to interpret it and to decide how to handle the situation.  

[Guest guest]

thank you.  I checked there has been no follow up by the president nor has the president asked them to continue in the position.  It's just being ignored. 

[Atul Kapur]

If there is still a question, the (resigning) officer can attend an Executive Board meeting, raise as a question of privilege the fact that they submitted their resignation over 30 days ago, repeat the intent to resign, and leave all the books and materials that need to be transferred there with the secretary at the meeting. 

[Guest Guest]

Ok, that sounds like a good approach also. Thank you 

[Richard Brown]

13 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

If there is still a question, the (resigning) officer can attend an Executive Board meeting, raise as a question of privilege the fact that they submitted their resignation over 30 days ago, repeat the intent to resign, and leave all the books and materials that need to be transferred there with the secretary at the meeting. 

“THEY submitted their resignation“? Now I’m curious: Just how many people submitted a resignation? I thought we were talking about one officer.   

[Atul Kapur]

Richard, you know that we've established that singular "they" is accepted English.

They've said so. 😆

Edited October 9, 2020 at 03:18 PM by Atul Kapur

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Richard, you know that we've established that singular "they" is accepted English.

They've said so. 😆

I don’t know who this collective “we” is that have supposedly established that the (so-called) singular “they” is acceptable, but I have certainly not done so! 

Edited October 9, 2020 at 03:38 PM by Richard Brown
Added (so-called). “They”is plural.

[Atul Kapur]

Richard, we went over all this just over a month ago. It was (arguably) relevant to that discussion but I'm not inclined to re-hash it here and hijack this thread. A quick search will lead you to many grammar forums where you can argue this point.

For here, let's just agree to disagree and "live and let live."

Edited October 9, 2020 at 05:19 PM by Atul Kapur