Elected President versus Appointed President

[Richard Brown]

On 1/11/2022 at 12:00 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think we should assume that an attempt to decline the office of president is effectively the submission of a resignation from the office of vice-president.

I concur.  That "assumption" bothered me from the beginning but I was not able to respond to it at the time.  I appreciate your comments on this issue.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/11/2022 at 3:56 PM, Richard Brown said:

On 1/11/2022 at 1:00 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think we should assume that an attempt to decline the office of president is effectively the submission of a resignation from the office of vice-president.

I concur.  That "assumption" bothered me from the beginning but I was not able to respond to it at the time.  I appreciate your comments on this issue.

Of course, we should also not assume that it is effectively the submission of a resignation from the office of president, either. 🙂

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/11/2022 at 1:00 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think we should assume that an attempt to decline the office of president is effectively the submission of a resignation from the office of vice-president. And indeed OP Jennie stated, "I am actually the VP and I turned down the Presidency," so apparently neither she nor the board interpreted the attempt to decline the presidency as a resignation from office.

Help me understand the logic of that. The president has resigned. OP Jennie is automatically the president, under RONR. President Jennie states, "I am actually the VP and I turned down the Presidency," but Jennie is already the president, not the VP, . 

So how is it that turning down a position that you are already in is not effectively the submission of a resignation from that position? 

The only way I can connect the dots is to postulate that if and when President Jennie is informed of the fact that, "Hey, actually you are already the president," then Jennie would accept reality and stay in the position.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/11/2022 at 6:57 PM, Atul Kapur said:

So how is it that turning down a position that you are already in is not effectively the submission of a resignation from that position?

If you think that by turning down the office of president, you are staying in the office of VP, I don't see how that can be interpreted as having submitted a resignation that results in having left both offices.

[Atul Kapur]

Tarzan has been automatically swung from Vine A to Vine B. He then "turns down" Vine B. He's falling to the forest floor, no matter that he thought he was still on Vine A.

I believe that someone should tell President Jennie the ramifications of "turning it down," and see if that's really the intent. But the alternative to turning down the presidency is not staying in the vice president role that you no longer occupy.

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

― Omar Khayyám

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/11/2022 at 7:15 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I believe that someone should tell President Jennie the ramifications of "turning it down," and see if that's really the intent. But the alternative to turning down the presidency is not staying in the vice president role that you no longer occupy.

I don't think there is any disagreement here on that point. The only dispute is whether saying "I decline the presidency", which is not an option to do, is effectively the same thing as "I resign the office of president that I already occupy (but don't even know that I do)" 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/11/2022 at 1:00 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think we should assume that an attempt to decline the office of president is effectively the submission of a resignation from the office of vice-president. And indeed OP Jennie stated, "I am actually the VP and I turned down the Presidency," so apparently neither she nor the board interpreted the attempt to decline the presidency as a resignation from office.

If not, then what did they interpret it as?  It could not have been as an attempt to decline the presidency, because as you have pointed out, this cannot be done.  At the time this attempt was made, the VP had already become president.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/13/2022 at 1:59 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If not, then what did they interpret it as?  It could not have been as an attempt to decline the presidency, because as you have pointed out, this cannot be done.  At the time this attempt was made, the VP had already become president.

Well, regardless of how logical or illogical it might be, I think it is fairly obvious that the society interpreted their refusal to assume the office of president as being just that and nothing more. The fact that RONR might say that is not a permissible interpretation doesn’t stop them from interpreting it that way anyway.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/13/2022 at 2:59 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If not, then what did they interpret it as?  It could not have been as an attempt to decline the presidency, because as you have pointed out, this cannot be done.  At the time this attempt was made, the VP had already become president.

 

On 1/13/2022 at 3:15 PM, Richard Brown said:

Well, regardless of how logical or illogical it might be, I think it is fairly obvious that the society interpreted their refusal to assume the office of president as being just that and nothing more. The fact that RONR might say that is not a permissible interpretation doesn’t stop them from interpreting it that way anyway.

Thank you, Richard.

To repeat, RONR (12th ed.) 47:29 states: "A vice-president cannot decline to take the higher office to which he has been automatically promoted; if unable or unwilling to carry out the duties of the new office, his only recourse is then to submit his resignation, upon the acceptance of which he will no longer hold either office."

I think it could hardly be more clear that according to RONR, declining to take the higher office is distinct from resigning from said office, because the first is something that cannot be done and the second is something that can be done.

So why would one interpret the expression of a desire to do the first thing as actually having done the second thing?

[Guest Zev]

Whoever selected the vice-president is more than likely the same entity that selected the president. That group is highly unlikely to be flummoxed at the possibility of having to select a new president as versus having to select a new vice-president. It seems to me that giving this entity the option, depending on the wishes of the vice-president to assume the higher office or not, of selecting either one instead of being bound in a straightjacket and forcing the vice-president to take the higher office or resign. Let us start thinking in terms of greater flexibility and the liberty of action on the part of the various players. Perhaps the authors would consider a re-write of the section in question to keep the automatic ascension of the vice-president yet retaining the flexibility of electing a new president. After all there may be circumstances where retaining the vice-president may be profitable since some organizations have several vice-presidents that manage various departments and forcing one, or even more, to resign just to retain an arbitrary line of succession does not seem to be in the best interests of every single organization.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 1/13/2022 at 8:31 PM, Guest Zev said:

Perhaps the authors would consider a re-write of the section in question to keep the automatic ascension of the vice-president yet retaining the flexibility of electing a new president. After all there may be circumstances where retaining the vice-president may be profitable since some organizations have several vice-presidents that manage various departments and forcing one, or even more, to resign just to retain an arbitrary line of succession does not seem to be in the best interests of every single organization.

Any organization that wishes to do this already has an "out." All they have to do is add the phrase, "including the office of president" in their vacancy-filling provision.