Resignation

[Guest Charlotte]

A member of our organization submitted her resignation. A motion was made to NOT accept the resignation. This motion was seconded, and it passed unanimously. A few days later, the member withdrew the resignation. A few days later, several members of the body decided they did in fact wish to accept the resignation. Does the organization have the authority to go back and reconsider its action and vote to accept the resignation? RONR says the resignation cannot be withdrawn without permission once it has been placed before the body on the question of its acceptance. The member is claiming that since the motion was to NOT accept the resignation, it was never before the body on the question of its acceptance, but on the question of its non-acceptance, and that she should therefore be allowed to withdraw it.

[STA]

The resignation was submitted, acted upon by the assembly, and the individual was notified. There was no longer any resignation to be withdrawn, and the action by the assembly cannot be rescinded. (RONR p298)

[Trina]

A resignation is simply a request to be excused from a duty. The assembly clearly acted upon the request (albeit in sort of an odd way, by voting on a motion NOT to accept the resignation), and as Mr. Anderson has pointed out, the action cannot be rescinded if 'the person was present or has been officially notified of the action.' (RONR p. 298 ll. 3-4)

The member is wrong (in her claim that she can still withdraw her resignation request), but it doesn't matter -- that request has been dealt with by the assembly, and is no longer active.

Also, I don't think one can logically argue that the assembly hasn't really acted on the request yet, and can now come back with a motion to accept the resignation, simply because the previous decision was on a motion to not accept the resignation -- that really amounts to exactly the same question, just with a NOT operator inserted.

[David A Foulkes]

And to be a little picky, RONR says "The chair, on reading or announcing the resignation, can assume a motion 'that the resignation be accepted'." Wishing to deny the request, the assembly would vote no in the majority.

Now, since a formal motion was made, as opposed to the chair assuming one, that's an oh-so-slight wrinkle in the fabric I suppose. But I take from this that when a formal motion is made, it should also be "that the resignation be accepted", and should the assembly wish to "reject" the resignation, it votes no in the majority.

Additionally, as the Request to be Excused from a Duty (Sec. 32, p. 278 item 8) can only be reconsidered in the negative (normally the request being denied by virtue of a majority no vote), in this particular instance the negative vote is in a sense the affirmative vote (those who voted no to rejecting the request, thus voting to accept it) due to the wording of the motion.

Could be splitting a hair here, but it's a thought.

[Trina]

....

Additionally, as the Request to be Excused from a Duty (Sec. 32, p. 278 item 8) can only be reconsidered in the negative (normally the request being denied by virtue of a majority no vote), in this particular instance the negative vote is in a sense the affirmative vote (those who voted no to rejecting the request, thus voting to accept it) due to the wording of the motion.

Could be splitting a hair here, but it's a thought.

Thank goodness it's too late to reconsider in this case . I'm guessing you're right, though, that at the same meeting where the motion to not accept the resignation was voted upon, that it could have been reconsidered (despite the fact that, technically, the affirmative vote prevailed on the motion as stated).