Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Co-chairs


Daisy Carrington

Recommended Posts

Our PTA has several co-chair committee positions. I understand (pg 176 RONR) that co-chairs should be avoided, but we have them. We are considering making one committee chair a board position. The chair would have one vote (for two co-chairs). Someone asked if they disagree, if they get a half vote, which sounded absurd to me, but I thought I'd ask. To me, if they can't agree, they would be advised to abstain. That or wrestle each other to the ground until one concedes. Thoughts, opinions, experience? Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

This is my thought process: Flaws? We have a Board meeting tomorrow.

Robert's Rules recommends avoiding co-chairs as they can cause impossible dilemmas (not agreeing on a vote). That being said, we have them and they are helpful to our members. Since we recognize one full vote for each Board position, if co-chairs do not agree and wish to submit a half vote, no vote would be recognized from that Board position and the Board position would be deemed to have abstained from the vote. I doubt we'll ever have such a polarizing issue, but you never know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't do it - not until you stop having Co-Chairs.  Start appointing a Chairman and a Vice-Chairman instead and then the Chairman can receive the Board position.  This way, you always have someone ready to chair a meeting if the Chairman is absent, but you don't have to deal with two people doing the same job.

 

This is something that you can fix through attrition.  As a Co-Chair moves on, you simply appoint a Vice-Chairman instead of a Co-Chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our PTA has several co-chair committee positions. I understand (pg 176 RONR) that co-chairs should be avoided, but we have them. . . . Thoughts, opinions, experience?

 

Don't have them. You're asking us to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Can't be done.

 

And do your bylaws really provide for co-chairs or have you just elected two people to share the one position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our By-laws are silent on committee co-chairs, hence my reference to RONR. RONR suggests avoidance, but does not disallow them. Hence my second entry is how I have addressed the voting issue if the co-chairs disagree. Does it sound reasonable and consistent with RONR? We will eventually write something into our standing rules.

Parents in the PTA love co-chairs, as it gives them a partner to share the work, which at times can be extensive a thankless. Co-chairs are very common in PTA committee chair positions, never the elected officers.

The Board appoints committee chairs, so with co-chairs, we appoint two people to one position, hence the one vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our By-laws are silent on committee co-chairs . . . 

 

Then you can't have them (and the second of the appointed, or elected. co-chairs are illegitimate). It's not enough that RONR doesn't prohibit them, your bylaws must specifically authorize them.

 

So I guess the good news is that you only have one chair (per committee) and that chair will have one (whole) vote as a member of the board.

 

Edited to add: You can no more select two people to "share" the chair than you could select ten people to share the chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our By-laws are silent on committee co-chairs, hence my reference to RONR. RONR suggests avoidance, but does not disallow them. Hence my second entry is how I have addressed the voting issue if the co-chairs disagree. Does it sound reasonable and consistent with RONR? We will eventually write something into our standing rules.

Parents in the PTA love co-chairs, as it gives them a partner to share the work, which at times can be extensive a thankless. Co-chairs are very common in PTA committee chair positions, never the elected officers.

The Board appoints committee chairs, so with co-chairs, we appoint two people to one position, hence the one vote.

 

No.  RONR doesn't just advise against co-officers--that is, it does advise against them, but it also prohibits them unless your bylaws expressly allow for it, and yours apparently don't.   So you do not have co-chairs.    Standing rules aren't good enough, so don't bother with them.  I know co-chairs are common in PTAs, and a glance at the bylaws will usually show that they aren't valid positions, just as with your group.

 

The rule is one person one vote.  The rule is NOT one office, one vote.  If you've put two people on the board, they each get a vote, unless you have rules in your bylaws that expressly supersede that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, can you please reference where in RONR it states that co-chairs of committees are prohibited? 

 

It doesn't matter whether RONR prohibits co-chairs or not. You can't elect more than one person to an office unless your bylaws (unwisely) say you can. Otherwise, what would prohibit you from electing co-presidents? Or co-treasurers?

 

A committee has a chair. It's one person. You can't cram two or more persons into that chair unless you adopt a rule that says you can. It's a chair. It's not a couch. It's not a sofa. It's not even a loveseat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Daisy Carrington

Apparently you can cram two people into one chair, as co-chairs are very common in many organizations. I'd like to know the facts. Where are co-chairs prohibited in RONR, if they are? If our by-laws are silent, which they are on many issues, we are able to "adopt a rule" in our standing rules that covers the topic. We can adopt a rules that permits co-chairs, with one vote for the chair that they are crammed into. What would prohibit us from writing this into our standing rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently you can cram two people into one chair, as co-chairs are very common in many organizations. I'd like to know the facts. Where are co-chairs prohibited in RONR, if they are? If our by-laws are silent, which they are on many issues, we are able to "adopt a rule" in our standing rules that covers the topic. We can adopt a rules that permits co-chairs, with one vote for the chair that they are crammed into. What would prohibit us from writing this into our standing rules?

 

There is nothing in RONR which prohibits co-anything. Generally speaking, it's an organization's bylaws which prohibit it. An organization's bylaws will often say, for instance, that there is President or Vice President or chair of each committee. The word "a" is singular.

 

It is conceivable that the bylaws would be written in such a way that co-chairs are not prohibited. Additionally, if a committee is created outside of the bylaws, there is certainly no reason that there cannot be co-chairs. (Although, as noted, RONR still strongly advises against it.) It should also be apparent, of course, that only one person can actually preside over a committee meeting at any given time.

 

RONR does, however, prohibit two people from sharing one vote. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 407) The same principle would apply to two people who share one position. Deviating from this principle would require a rule in the bylaws. A standing rule is certainly not sufficient. If you adopt such rules, you should certainly clarify how to resolve such issues as the members in question disagreeing, as RONR does not address how to handle such problems.

 

But you'll need to amend the bylaws to make a committee chair a board position anyway, so you can work on this other stuff while you're at it (if you insist on it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws give us the option of determining which committee chairs sit on the Board. We plan to appoint the chair to the Board, and then appoint two persons to share the chair. Josh, I understand your interpretation and your logic regarding the passage above (pg. 407). But read the entry again and note that it says the position is entitled to a vote, not the person(s) who share the position. RONR is silent on if the position is held by two people. This is the key passage I've been working from to suggest our standing rules address the voting for co-chairs who sit on the Board.

We have co-chairs. They are volunteers. It's the only way they agreed to volunteer. We need them. Some on this forum have suggested we get rid of them, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Thus we need to deal with what we have. Josh, does it really make sense to you that a Board, made up of 10 positions, would have 11 votes because one position has co-chairs? Co means share. The vote is shared. We'd not be slighting the persons, we'd be honoring the chair.

Those very same people would have a full vote as members of the general assembly. But the members of the Board are the positions, and the position has a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have co-chairs. They are volunteers. It's the only way they agreed to volunteer. We need them. Some on this forum have suggested we get rid of them, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Thus we need to deal with what we have. Josh, does it really make sense to you that a Board, made up of 10 positions, would have 11 votes because one position has co-chairs? Co means share. The vote is shared. We'd not be slighting the persons, we'd be honoring the chair.

 

 

I'm not Josh, but a board is made up of people, not positions. A person may be a member of the board because of their position, but the position itself is not a member of the board.

 

Having a co-chair is confusing and creates more problems than it solves. About the only thing it solves is the problem of people being too chicken to do something alone. But there's really no reason why you can't have a chair and a vice-chair (or if you prefer assistant chair) who are just as much co-laborers in the task, but with the marked difference that it is clear which one will be sitting on the board and which one will have the final say when they disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have co-chairs. They are volunteers. It's the only way they agreed to volunteer. We need them.

 

The only thing the chair has to do is preside at meetings. And only one person can to that (at a time). This doesn't prevent you from having all the volunteers you want nor does it prevent anyone from assisting the chair with any other administrative responsibilities she might have.

 

Do you really have two members who won't volunteer to serve on a committee unless they can both be chair?

 

When the committee meets, how is decided which of the chairs presides?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have co-chairs. They are volunteers. It's the only way they agreed to volunteer. We need them. Some on this forum have suggested we get rid of them, but that's not going to happen any time soon. Thus we need to deal with what we have. Josh, does it really make sense to you that a Board, made up of 10 positions, would have 11 votes because one position has co-chairs? Co means share. The vote is shared. We'd not be slighting the persons, we'd be honoring the chair.

 

The point is, however, that since your bylaws are silent on co-chairs, you in fact do not have any, and the motion appointing them is null and void--well, the motion appointing the second one, anyway.  I'm not suggesting you get rid of them, because you don't have them.  If you are not following your own rules, and not following RONR, any advice you would get from a forum dedicated to RONR would be relatively pointless.

 

One-person-one-vote is a fundamental rule of parliamentary law, and again could only be possible by explicitly including those rules in the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, if a committee is created outside of the bylaws, there is certainly no reason that there cannot be co-chairs. (Although, as noted, RONR still strongly advises against it.) It should also be apparent, of course, that only one person can actually preside over a committee meeting at any given time.

 

I'm inclined to agree, especially if the special committee is assigned to a fairly simple task and rarely meets. For example, a bake sale commitee. Naming co-chairs might just be a way of acknowledging the two members with the best recipes. It's not so much a parliamentary position as it is a way to avoid ruffled feathers.

 

Edited to add: But then it might be best to avoid such parliamentary terms as "committee" and "chair" in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i could, I would "like" Edgar's post 16. This is the heart of the matter. Co-chairs to my mind brings up an image of co-drivers trying to drive a car at the same time. The chairman is necessarily a single person job. If no one wants to do it alone, perhaps you have put too much  other tasks into the job. The chairman should really have very little additional work then any other member. The most onerous is the actual presiding at the committee meetings, and that cannot of course be shared!  The rest of the work of the committee is the responsibility of the entire committee. They are all "co -workers" and everyone should be pulling their weight or else why are they on the committee? 

 

In any event, if your organization persists in this direction, I am afraid your organization will have to deal (in the bylaws) with the "impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position." (RONR pg 176)  I am afraid RONR is not going to be much help in solving them, and I suspect it is impossible as RONR suggests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chairman should really have very little additional work then any other member. 

 

While I appreciate Dr. Entropy's kind words, I feel compelled to cite p.500 where RONR notes that "in committees, the chairman [sic] is usually the most active participant in the discussions and work of the committee". Of course this is in no way an argument in favor of having more than one chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I suspect we're dealing with hens here (unless you're going to claim that your choice of words is gender neutral).

I suspect you are right, but the only metaphor for hens that I could think of was "madder than an old wet hen."

 

 

While I appreciate Dr. Entropy's kind words, I feel compelled to cite p.500 where RONR notes that "in committees, the chairman [sic] is usually the most active participant in the discussions and work of the committee". Of course this is in no way an argument in favor of having more than one chair.

I've found that to be true, which is why I try not to be the chair of more than one committee at a time. But I'm not sure how that holds out for co-chairs. I suspect that either one will be the more busy of the two and is essentially the chair, or both will wait for the other one to do something and nothing will get done. But then, women do tend to have a more collaborative attitude than men. But I wouldn't put too much reliance on that collaborative attitude. I've actually seen more women run into problems with situations like this than I have men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, I understand your interpretation and your logic regarding the passage above (pg. 407). But read the entry again and note that it says the position is entitled to a vote, not the person(s) who share the position. RONR is silent on if the position is held by two people. This is the key passage I've been working from to suggest our standing rules address the voting for co-chairs who sit on the Board.

 

Nonsense. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 407, emphasis added) It is correct that RONR does not directly address the situation of people who share a position (which is unsurprising, given RONR's dim view on that subject), but it still seems clear that the rule is one person = one member = one vote.

 

This is the key passage I've been working from to suggest our standing rules address the voting for co-chairs who sit on the Board.

 

Standing rules are not sufficient to address voting of any sort. Rules pertaining to voting are in the nature of rules of order. 

 

In the particular case of giving members more (or less) than one vote, such a rule must be in the bylaws.

 

Josh, does it really make sense to you that a Board, made up of 10 positions, would have 11 votes because one position has co-chairs? Co means share. The vote is shared. We'd not be slighting the persons, we'd be honoring the chair.

 

It makes perfect sense to me, since as noted previously, "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question." If there are eleven people on the board, there are eleven votes, regardless of whether those eleven people hold 10 positions, 11 positions, or 12 positions (or whatever other number). The only reason this would not be the case is if the society's bylaws or an even higher-level rule provided otherwise.

 

But the members of the Board are the positions, and the position has a vote.

 

No. The members of the Board are the people who are in the positions and the person has a vote.

 

If your society wishes to have two people who share a vote (which I do not recommend), this must be specified in the bylaws.

 

The point is, however, that since your bylaws are silent on co-chairs, you in fact do not have any, and the motion appointing them is null and void--well, the motion appointing the second one, anyway.  I'm not suggesting you get rid of them, because you don't have them.  If you are not following your own rules, and not following RONR, any advice you would get from a forum dedicated to RONR would be relatively pointless.

 

One-person-one-vote is a fundamental rule of parliamentary law, and again could only be possible by explicitly including those rules in the bylaws.

 

Gary, if a committee is created outside of the bylaws, I see no reason why a committee could not appoint "co-chairs," provided only one person presides at any given time. (In effect, it's like having a Chair and Vice Chair with different titles, which is my experience of how most "co-chairs" actually function.) It is conceivable that the bylaws are written in such a way that they also do not prohibit this arrangement for committees in the bylaws.

 

I quite agree, however, that sharing a vote is another thing entirely, and is certainly not valid unless authorized by the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...