Search the Community

Our bylaws state the President appoints the chairperson and all members of the standing committees and be an ex-officio member of all committees. Our current President was a committee chair when they were elected President. At first, they agreed to step down from the committee and appoint a new chair. Now the President has stated that they will continue as chair of the committee. Is this proper? Can the President be chair of a committee if bylaws state they are an ex-officio member of the committee? Also, our officers and committee chairpersons receive compensation. If the President can be committee chair, should she get paid as President and as committee chair?

If it is the responsibility of the president to appoint committee chairs and a vote of the B.O.D. is required to approval the appointments. Is the President as a member of the B.O.D. allowed to vote. I was told that since the president is appointing the chairs that they are now considered bias and should remove him(her)self from the vote.

I'm on a committee of 4 people that has been tasked with planning the program for an event. Since the committee is so small and we almost always agree on things, is it okay to just run on unanimous consent until someone disagrees with something and raises an objection? The parliamentary authority is RONR and no bylaws provision contradicts my plan.

We have a small board of trustees - 7 members. We have committees of 2 with the chair an ex-officio of each. A new chair of a committee would like to invite another board member to be on the committee. Are there rules concerning how many members may be on a committee? My concern is that with the 3 members (vs. 2) and the chair they would constitute a quorum in the larger board. IF there is some guidance, can you point me to it? Thank you so much.

Does a recommendation from a committee concerning the usage of funds on their budget line for an event requires a vote or not? Do the committee even needs to bring forth any recommendations since the budget was already approved by the members and the expenditure is within their budget line?

Our faculty charter & bylaws allow the Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) to recommend charter/bylaw amendments to be ratified (or not) by the faculty as a whole. The charter and bylaws do not specify whether or not proposed amendments must be submitted for ratification individually, or if proposed amendments could be submitted for ratification as a "slate" to be voted up or down in its entirety. I'm new in the Parliamentarian position, and I need help... I am given to understand that the FAC would prefer to recommend a slate of amendments rather than individual amendments. It seems to me that if that's what they wish to do, then they could. Our charter states only that " Any proposed amendment(s) to the charter must be presented in writing to the faculty of the College of Music at least fourteen (14) class days before faculty discussion and subsequent balloting at a special meeting of the faculty." There is just no mention of slate vs. individual. Am I off-base, here? Can the FAC recommend a slate of amendments, or must they recommend individual amendments? Thanks in advance!!!

This is a question on whether a debate is called for. Organization of 1000 (hereafter Assembly) is looking to fill position of president. The elected officers (10 members of organization, selected by Assembly). Officers solicit nominations for Assembly Members to be on a committee to recommend the next President. A list of 10 members are selected by the Officers, who refer to this as the Nominating Slate. The Nominating Slate is put before the Assembly to be voted on for approval and an Assembly meeting. A Motion (in my opinion) is presented to the Moderator, who calls for a vote of Aye to approve the Slate, No to reject the Slate. However, no Debate is allowed among the members of the Assembly. Specifically, a member requested a period of debate, and was told, "there will be no debate" by the moderator. (There was no motion to suppress debate, nor are there by-laws that prevent debate that are known to the membership. In past meetings, debate has been allowed, but not acted upon.) Is this appropriate? Is there a clause somewhere to prevent debate, via something that looks like a motion, but is not a motion?

This is in regards to an HOA. We have 7 directors and 3 directors created a committee calling it the executive strategy committee. Under Roberts Rule of Order is this a legitimate committee that can be made up of just directors. Here is what our by-laws state about committees. ARTICLE XXV ADDITIONAL COMMITTEES SECTION 1. All Committees not already delineated in these Bylaws shall be appointed by a majority of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS no later than the BOARD'S last meeting in November. SECTION 2. Each Committee shall have a minimum of Three (3) members, of which One (1) member shall be a member of the BOARD OF DIRECTORS. SECTION 3. A majority of members of each Committee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The act of the majority of the members present at any meeting shall be the act of each Committee. SECTION 4. The members of each Committee shall elect a Chairman, a Vice Chairman, and a Secretary of the Committee. The Chairman, or in his absence the Vice Chairman, shall preside over all meetings. SECTION 5. Each Committee shall keep correct and complete written minutes of all its proceedings, which minutes shall be kept in bound form, properly executed by the Secretary of the Committee and approved by the Chairman and kept at the principal office of the ASSOCIATION.

How do you fill committees on a non-profit board

If the vice-president was presiding in the absence of the president and a motion was adopted that the president appoint a committee, should the vice-president be the one to appoint the committee or should the assembly wait for the return of the president?