Election / Resignation

[Guest Youth Sports Advocate]

We held our 2011 general election last week and the winning candidate for league Secretary resigned 5 days later (before her term even began). Does the second place candidate automaticlly get appointed?

[hmtcastle]

Does the second place candidate automaticlly get appointed?

No.

When the secretary's term begins you'll have a vacancy. If there are no vacancy-filling provisions in your bylaws (e.g. appointment by the board), you'll need to hold a special election.

[Gary Novosielski]

No.

When the secretary's term begins you'll have a vacancy. If there are no vacancy-filling provisions in your bylaws (e.g. appointment by the board), you'll need to hold a special election.

I don't think that mid-term vacancy filling provisions, even if they existed, would apply. They are used when someone leaves office, not when someone fails take office.

This would appear to require handling as an incomplete election.

[hmtcastle]

This would appear to require handling as an incomplete election.

I think the election was completed when the winning candidate accepted.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think the election was completed when the winning candidate accepted.

But if the successor to the current occupant fails to take office, the current office holder would (if the "or until" clause is used) continue to serve, so there is no vacancy to fill.

I'd love to Feel a little Wrath on this one or better still get an OI. This has come up a number of times, in a number of forms, recently, and RONR is of little little help in resolving it. Several assumptions conspire to make this situation problematic:

• Elections are considered complete "immediately" upon the candidate learning of the results.
• Officers-elect assume their offices "immediately" upon completion of the election.
• Vacancy-filling provisions appear not to refer to incomplete elections, but rather to offices that become vacant by virtue of resignation, death, removal, etc.--offices that were occupied, but become vacant

But in real life, there are valid reasons, more often than not, for allowing necessary transition time between an election and assumption of office. And people, being human, sometimes change their minds during that interval.

It's too common a problem not to apply a little common parliamentary law and come up with a suggested method to resolve this. If it turns out to be VP ascension and vacancy-filling, that's fine, but a little certainty would help.

---

And just to be clear to the Original Poster, no, it is never right (absent a special rule) to "elect" the second-place candidate. Since the first-pace candidate received a majority of ballots cast, the second-place candidate mathematically could not have.

[hmtcastle]

But if the successor to the current occupant fails to take office, the current office holder would (if the "or until" clause is used) continue to serve, so there is no vacancy to fill.

That infamous clause applies only until the successor is elected, not until the successor takes office, and I hope we can agree that, in this instance, a successor was elected.

[Rob Elsman]

But if the successor to the current occupant fails to take office, the current office holder would (if the "or until" clause is used) continue to serve, so there is no vacancy to fill.

I'd love to Feel a little Wrath on this one or better still get an OI. This has come up a number of times, in a number of forms, recently, and RONR is of little little help in resolving it. Several assumptions conspire to make this situation problematic:

• Elections are considered complete "immediately" upon the candidate learning of the results.
• Officers-elect assume their offices "immediately" upon completion of the election.
• Vacancy-filling provisions appear not to refer to incomplete elections, but rather to offices that become vacant by virtue of resignation, death, removal, etc.--offices that were occupied, but become vacant

But in real life, there are valid reasons, more often than not, for allowing necessary transition time between an election and assumption of office. And people, being human, sometimes change their minds during that interval.

It's too common a problem not to apply a little common parliamentary law and come up with a suggested method to resolve this. If it turns out to be VP ascension and vacancy-filling, that's fine, but a little certainty would help.

---

And just to be clear to the Original Poster, no, it is never right (absent a special rule) to "elect" the second-place candidate. Since the first-pace candidate received a majority of ballots cast, the second-place candidate mathematically could not have.

I agree with Mr. Mountcastle on this one.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

That infamous clause applies only until the successor is elected,

not until the successor takes office,

...

To cover the exception:

There is NO DIFFERENCE in RONR (10th ed. 2000) between:

(a.) the moment Person P is "elected."

(b.) the moment Person P "takes office" (i.e., begins his term of office).

If the organization has a customized rule which splits #a and #b, then an ambiguity could arise, regarding how to apply the RONR rule, which assumes that #a and #b are identical.

[E A Lemoine]

I agree that under RONR, the election being complete and "taking office" occurs at the same time, even if the bylaws prescribe some sort of ceremony that is conducted to "install" officers. Of course the specific wording of the bylaws would be needed to determine whether the election being complete and when "taking office" happens to see whether they are indeed two separate events.

[Guest Lieutenant 1117]

In regards to your original question, I have one of my own regarding a similar situation. In December, we had our elections for company officers. Two candidates put their names in for Captain and the previous captain won. The following day, he emailed the company and stated that he no longer wanted the nomination and would be resigning at the completion of his current term, December 31st, 2010, at 2359hrs. After hearing of this, it was determined that a special election/meeting would need to be conducted at the next monthly/regular meeting. My question is this. The following election was a cluster f*** to say the least. The elections didn't take place until February instead of December because no one could decipher the bylaws. To make the story short, the current captain and lieutenant were not able to take office until the election in February, thus giving them a term of 11 months instead of 12. According to Roberts Rules, the officers serving the term of 11 months, is it considered a complete, full term since they were only able to serve 11 months? Since they were only able to servie 11 months does it count as a complete term since the company botched the elections in the first place?

[hmtcastle]

According to Roberts Rules, the officers serving the term of 11 months, is it considered a complete, full term since they were only able to serve 11 months? Since they were only able to servie 11 months does it count as a complete term since the company botched the elections in the first place?

For one thing, it doesn't matter (to RONR) if they served a full term or not. The term ends when it ends. Moving the starting line doesn't move the finish line.

For purposes of term limits, serving more than half a term is counted as having served a full term.

[Gary Novosielski]

That infamous clause applies only until the successor is elected, not until the successor takes office, and I hope we can agree that, in this instance, a successor was elected.

But then you are arguing that the current occupant of the office was evicted as of the election date, even though the officers-elect don't take office till January.

That's equally (and arguably more) absurd.

[George Mervosh]

But then you are arguing that the current occupant of the office was evicted as of the election date, even though the officers-elect don't take office till January.

That's equally (and arguably more) absurd.

I think this one has been talked about for the better part of 10 years, but I don't recall assuming office being a crucial factor in determining what is proper here.

[hmtcastle]

But then you are arguing that the current occupant of the office was evicted as of the election date, even though the officers-elect don't take office till January.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that the election was completed when the successful candidate accepted the office (not necessarily when he takes office).

Are you suggesting that, for example, the November U.S. Presidential election isn't complete until January?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Are you suggesting that, for example, the November U.S. Presidential election isn't complete until January?

I will repeat a theme of mine.

"It is possible for an election to be complete, and then, incomplete."

Just as a puzzle can be complete at 7:00 pm and incomplete at 7:30 pm, an election can be be complete on Wednesday, and then incomplete on Friday, due to the "completeness" being altered or destroyed, such as being due to a sudden death of the "winner".

Upon a sudden death of the "winner", the assembly will have elected someone who cannot serve.

And when the assembly elects a party who cannot serve, the assembly has an incomplete election, at that point. -- Despite their full faith and confidence the previous day that such was not the case, and would not continue to be the case.

How do we know this? Because if the sudden death of (say) a Kiwanis club president-elect were to occur in the same meeting as the announcement of the Chief Teller of the voting results, we know that the Kiwanis club could, in theory, immediately hold round two of balloting. -- This, despite the election being "complete" -- for a good 15 minutes of so.

You know, you cannot hold a round two of balloting for a complete election.

But you CAN hold a round two if the first round resulted in an incomplete election.

(Note that is isn't a special election, nor a by-election, or an interim election. It is a second round of the same election, in the same session.)

[Shmuel Gerber]

I will repeat a theme of mine.

"It is possible for an election to be complete, and then, incomplete."

Just as a puzzle can be complete at 7:00 pm and incomplete at 7:30 pm, an election can be be complete on Wednesday, and then incomplete on Friday, due to the "completeness" being altered or destroyed, such as being due to a sudden death of the "winner".

Upon a sudden death of the "winner", the assembly will have elected someone who cannot serve.

And when the assembly elects a party who cannot serve, the assembly has an incomplete election, at that point. -- Despite their full faith and confidence the previous day that such was not the case, and would not continue to be the case.

How do we know this? Because if the sudden death of (say) a Kiwanis club president-elect were to occur in the same meeting as the announcement of the Chief Teller of the voting results, we know that the Kiwanis club could, in theory, immediately hold round two of balloting. -- This, despite the election being "complete" -- for a good 15 minutes of so.

You know, you cannot hold a round two of balloting for a complete election.

But you CAN hold a round two if the first round resulted in an incomplete election.

(Note that is isn't a special election, nor a by-election, or an interim election. It is a second round of the same election, in the same session.)

What a lot of nonsense. There is nothing in RONR that says any of this.

[tctheatc]

So it cannot be true? Or even make sense?? Wow.

[Shmuel Gerber]

So it cannot be true? Or even make sense?? Wow.

I didn't say that nothing that is not in RONR don't make no sense, but this don't make no sense. :-)

[Gary Novosielski]

So it cannot be true? Or even make sense?? Wow.

There are a lot of people saying what the rule is not, without saying what the rule is.

[Josh Martin]

There are a lot of people saying what the rule is not, without saying what the rule is.

Well, Mr. Mountcastle got it exactly right in the first post, so there's not much point in the rest of us saying anything about it.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

What a lot of nonsense. There is nothing in RONR that says any of this.

With what do you disagree?

See page 430. ("Time at which an election takes effect")

If he [viz., the candidate who is present and who achieves a majority vote] does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice.

Page 430 is only describing an "incomplete" election.

That's the negative side. -- incompleteness.

What is the positive side, then, i.e., completeness?

From page 430, I assume that the election is COMPLETE if there is a candidate _____:

(a.) who is present, and who achieves a majority vote;

(b.) who does not decline upon notification.

Agree?

Q. Are you saying that a person who ____

(a.) accepted the office;

(b.) died before adjournment,

. . . is not a case of an incomplete election?

I assert, "Where the election has elected a dead man, that election is incomplete." (And a second round of balloting will be necessary.)

• I assert that the "election" of a fictional character (e.g., Mickey Mouse) results in an incomplete election.

• I assert that the "election" of a dead candidate, likewise, results in an incomplete election.

But you see it otherwise?

RONR only uses the term "fictional" once, and RONR never mentions what is to occur when a fictional character achieves a majority vote, nor what to do when an ineligible candidate "wins" an election. (See the entry, "Mr. Friend," in the sample tellers report on page 403.)

Surely, a dead man is an ineligible candidate. Do you agree?

So, true, none of this (i.e., what the status is, when the "winner" cannot serve) is addressed in Robert's Rules of Order, tenth edition, 2000.

Q. Are you saying that you can hold a second round of balloting for a completed election?

If the first round of balloting results in an election which is truly complete, how do you justify the second round of balloting after then death of the (first) winning candidate, who was present and who did not decline?

Is it still "complete," nonetheless?

[Josh Martin]

From page 430, I assume that the election is COMPLETE if there is a candidate _____:

(a.) who is present, and who achieves a majority vote;

(b.) who does not decline upon notification.

Agree?

Yes.

Q. Are you saying that a person who ____

(a.) accepted the office;

(b.) died before adjournment,

. . . is not a case of an incomplete election?

Yes. The election was complete when the person accepted the office. So far as RONR is concerned, he began serving immediately upon the completion of the election, so there is now a vacancy in the office. If the organization's rules provide that the term of office begins later, then a vacancy will exist at the time the new term begins. I think one could quite reasonably argue, however, that no notice would be required to fill a vacancy if the vacancy was created during the same session as the election, since the members are already expecting elections to take place at that session. This would be the case in the example you have provided.

I assert, "Where the election has elected a dead man, that election is incomplete." (And a second round of balloting will be necessary.)

• I assert that the "election" of a fictional character (e.g., Mickey Mouse) results in an incomplete election.

• I assert that the "election" of a dead candidate, likewise, results in an incomplete election.

But you see it otherwise?

I agree with all of this, but in the example you have provided, the assembly did not elect a dead man. The assembly elected a living person who happened to die after the completion of the election.

Surely, a dead man is an ineligible candidate. Do you agree?

Yes.

Q. Are you saying that you can hold a second round of balloting for a completed election?

Yes.

If the first round of balloting results in an election which is truly complete, how do you justify the second round of balloting after then death of the (first) winning candidate, who was present and who did not decline?

It is a new election, but under the circumstances I would say that no further notice is required. It is not a continuation of the first election.

Is it still "complete," nonetheless?

Yes.

[Guest mcg]

What if a board member resigns by formal letter and one month later decides that he/she changes their mind? The resignation was already accepted by the board and another person was solicited for the seat. Can the first person be re-seated, when the resignation letter stated "effectively immediately" and was one month old when the person changed their mind? In the Articles of Incorporation it states that the "Board may fill the seat with the person who attained the next highest votes at the previous election".

[J. J.]

What if a board member resigns by formal letter and one month later decides that he/she changes their mind? The resignation was already accepted by the board and another person was solicited for the seat. Can the first person be re-seated, when the resignation letter stated "effectively immediately" and was one month old when the person changed their mind? In the Articles of Incorporation it states that the "Board may fill the seat with the person who attained the next highest votes at the previous election".

It would be too late. If accepted, he is no longer on the board.

[hmtcastle]

Can the first person be re-seated, when the resignation letter stated "effectively immediately" and was one month old when the person changed their mind?

If the board hasn't appointed anyone else, it's free to appoint the guy who resigned.