Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Co-chairs


Daisy Carrington

Recommended Posts

Discuss how a committee would be created outside of the bylaws. I understand in our case, since the chairman of this committee we are discussing would hold a Board position, this chair would be covered by the bylaws.

 

Not necessarily. During a regular meeting, someone might make a motion to form a committee. This would be creating a committee outside the bylaws because the committee is not named in the bylaws. If the bylaws do not specify which offices a committee has, the committee might decide for itself. So it might elect a committee chair. A larger committee might add a vice-chair, and a secretary to the mix. But the committee could just as easily elect co-chairs, rather than a chair and a vice-chair, since the bylaws don't specify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In an organization, generally, there are two types of committees that carry on the assembly's work; standing and special. Also, generally, standing committees in a organization are only those specified in the bylaws; all other standing committees are prohibited. Sometimes, bylaws permit an assembly to create additional standing committees, except where  bylaws specifically give the assembly this authority, electing additional standing committees is prohibited.

 

For further information on how this takes place, see pp. 490-491 of RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily. During a regular meeting, someone might make a motion to form a committee. This would be creating a committee outside the bylaws because the committee is not named in the bylaws. If the bylaws do not specify which offices a committee has, the committee might decide for itself. So it might elect a committee chair. A larger committee might add a vice-chair, and a secretary to the mix. But the committee could just as easily elect co-chairs, rather than a chair and a vice-chair, since the bylaws don't specify.

 

If the association has adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority, no committee thus created will have the power to appoint co-chairmen unless authorized to do so by the association's rules or by instructions given to it by its parent assembly (RONR, 11th ed., p. 176, ll. 7-18; p. 500, l. 22 to p. 501, l. 1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the association has adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority, no committee thus created will have the power to appoint co-chairmen unless authorized to do so by the association's rules or by instructions given to it by its parent assembly (RONR, 11th ed., p. 176, ll. 7-18; p. 500, l. 22 to p. 501, l. 1).

 

I can see where one might interpret what it says to mean that, but I'm not sure we want to go down that road, since that would also mean that the committee has no power to elect a vice-chairman unless authorized to do so by the bylaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see where one might interpret what it says to mean that, but I'm not sure we want to go down that road, since that would also mean that the committee has no power to elect a vice-chairman unless authorized to do so by the bylaws.

 

Give it up, Tim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws give the elected officers the power to create the standing committees (none are named in the bylaws) and then determine which standing committee chairman sit in the Board. This means either:

1) Our standing committees are created outside of the bylaws and we can have committee co-chairs without changing our bylaws. But in order to remove the right of the members who serve as those co-chairs to each have one full vote on the Board, we would need to amend our bylaws.

2) Even if the standing committees are created outside of our bylaws, they are still covered by our bylaws and thus the bylaws need to be changed to permit co-chairs (and limit the voting rights of he Board members who share the position).

I'm receiving conflicting information. Looking for solid advice to move forward and amend our bylaws which is no easy task, as you know.

This discussion does make it clear that co-chairs are not a good idea and a chair and vice chair better serve all those involved in the long run. We can move in that direction for sure. Today we have to deal with co-chairs. As always, I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either 1) or 2) would work, I suppose, but not well, I also suppose. 

 

RONR does say you are free to adopt bylaws/rules that are contrary to "standard" parliamentary law (p. 10)  --  just do so with caution and a full grasp of the possible consequences.

 

It might be easier to (diplomatically) do away with the co-chair concept rather than go to the effort of amending the bylaws to accommodate it.  Especially since (as noted in my little essay) those accommodations can be legion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws give the elected officers the power to create the standing committees (none are named in the bylaws) and then determine which standing committee chairman sit in the Board. This means either:

1) Our standing committees are created outside of the bylaws and we can have committee co-chairs without changing our bylaws. 

2) Even if the standing committees are created outside of our bylaws, they are still covered by our bylaws and thus the bylaws need to be changed to permit co-chairs.

I'm receiving conflicting information. 

 

I think I'd go with the following interpretation (which seems to support your #2): 

 

If the association has adopted Robert's Rules of Order as its parliamentary authority, no committee thus created will have the power to appoint co-chairmen unless authorized to do so by the association's rules or by instructions given to it by its parent assembly (RONR, 11th ed., p. 176, ll. 7-18; p. 500, l. 22 to p. 501, l. 1)

 

And, in case you hadn't noticed, Mr. Honemann (with others) wrote the book. Literally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to have co-chairs sitting on the board, you will have to change your bylaws. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

I don't, however, think you can say that "today we have to deal with co-chairs." If the bylaws say that it is the chairman that sits on the board, then it is the chairman that sits on the board. If a committee has co-chairs (by whatever means that happened) they cannot fill the place of the chairman on the board without the bylaws specifying how that is done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either 1) or 2) would work, I suppose, but not well, I also suppose. 

 

RONR does say you are free to adopt bylaws/rules that are contrary to "standard" parliamentary law (p. 10)  --  just do so with caution and a full grasp of the possible consequences.

 

It might be easier to (diplomatically) do away with the co-chair concept rather than go to the effort of amending the bylaws to accommodate it.  Especially since (as noted in my little essay) those accommodations can be legion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't know how to use the quote... I love the page 10 reference by JD Stackpole quoted above. This is the essence of Robert's Rules. That's what I've been searching for. Someday soon I'll read RONR cover to cover and I'll get the full picture. Right now I looking in the index and piece-mealing this together with your help.

Anyway, within this thread, there is disagreement on whether co-chairs need to be spelled out in the bylaws. Co-chairs are not prohibited by RONR. I've seen no disagreement on the issue that sharing a vote must be spelled out in the bylaws because it violates one person, one vote, a fundamental principal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DC:

 

While you are starting out on your quest to become a parliamentarian (it is addictive) be sure to get yourself a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, within this thread, there is disagreement on whether co-chairs need to be spelled out in the bylaws. Co-chairs are not prohibited by RONR. I've seen no disagreement on the issue that sharing a vote must be spelled out in the bylaws because it violates one person, one vote, a fundamental principal.

 

Neither are mukeratarians, but that doesn't mean you can give one a seat on the board. Whether you can elect someone to position or not is immaterial when you consider that you are electing that person to a position without clearly defined roles and responsibilities. Even if the bylaws don't specify that each committee will have a vice-chairman and a secretary, if the committee were to elect them it would still be clear what they're responsibilities are because RONR describes those positions. Elect a mukeratarian and you don't know what he is supposed to do because it hasn't been defined. The same is true of the co-chair position. Because RONR doesn't define the roles and responsibilities, you don't know what the co-chair is supposed to do (hence the question about how to put them on the board). Until you define it in the bylaws, you might as well be electing a mukeratarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JD Stackpole, I have RONRIB, and I've read three other books on RONR. Plowing through the real thing is a goal. Mr. Fish, I understand and agree with your recommendations. But I'm looking for what we MUST do not what is recommended. If we need to change the bylaws for the voting of cochairs, well certainly spell out cochairs. I'm hoping we don't need to go that way, as after all this discussion, I see the aversion to cochairs. I have to say though, somehow they work just fine on the PTA. Every PTA I've known has had them. I'm just trying to adhere to the rules. I'm sure my compatriot PTAers think I'm annoying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our bylaws give the elected officers the power to create the standing committees (none are named in the bylaws) and then determine which standing committee chairman sit in the Board. This means either:

1) Our standing committees are created outside of the bylaws and we can have committee co-chairs without changing our bylaws. But in order to remove the right of the members who serve as those co-chairs to each have one full vote on the Board, we would need to amend our bylaws.

2) Even if the standing committees are created outside of our bylaws, they are still covered by our bylaws and thus the bylaws need to be changed to permit co-chairs (and limit the voting rights of he Board members who share the position).

 

In my opinion, #1 is correct, but as Mr. Honemann clarified in Post #28, only the parent assembly may decide for its committees to have co-chairs - a committee cannot make that decision on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vice-chairs (or, at least, vice-presidents) are defined (or, at least, described) in RONR. Co-chairs (and mukeratarians) are not.

The issue is this: while RONR gives explicit instructions on how a committee may select its own chairman, it says nothing about a committee selecting its own vice-chairman, only that the appointing power may appoint one (pg. 176). It does mention that committees may elect their own officers, but it doesn't state what those officers are. (Unless you go by what it names, which are chair, vice-chair, secretary, and co-chair.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is this: while RONR gives explicit instructions on how a committee may select its own chairman, it says nothing about a committee selecting its own vice-chairman, only that the appointing power may appoint one (pg. 176). It does mention that committees may elect their own officers, but it doesn't state what those officers are. (Unless you go by what it names, which are chair, vice-chair, secretary, and co-chair.)

 

Meanwhile, this is an excellent question . Along the same lines, if the authority to appoint sub-committees lies with the committee, does the discretion to appoint sub-committee chairman lie within the committee, or in the instructions from the assembly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, this is an excellent question ...

 

Oh fehh.  It may be an excellent question, but it goes nowheres near what OP Ms. Carrington asked.  

 

We can hound Ms. Carrington ad infinitum about her PTA's having co-chairs, but the fact is, they have co-chairs.  

 

So let's stop yammering at her about how her PTA shouldn't have co-chairs.  End of story.  Even if it's against the bylaws, and null and void, end of story.  That's the way the're  doing it.  End of story.  Quit whining.  We have got to the end of the story.

 

She, and we, recognize that she's not asking what RONR says.  She's asking what maybe we can advise her about, considering that we come from the context of RONR but we still have brains.  I note the forbearance of the Forum's Moderator, who sometimes stops discussion of matters that distinctly veer from what are RONR-adherent issues, but hasn't now:  Ms. Carrington is asking us, in RONR's context, and recognizing the almost nonsensical situation she's in, what we might advise her to do, and I'll accede to her condescension, and I advise and request that other posters do also.

 

C'mon, men:  this PTA is doing it the way they're doing it, and they don't care how much we on the Robert's Rules Internet Forum whine about it.

 

Ms. Carrington, as far as I'm concerned, and I think from RONR's POV, I advise that it doesn't matter much whether you or I think your half-chairs should get each a full vote or a half-vote.  Flip a coin: then put it into the bylaws.

 

What matters is that your group makes a definitive decision, and sticks to it, and probably that you stick it into your bylaws as soon as you can.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, this is an excellent question . Along the same lines, if the authority to appoint sub-committees lies with the committee, does the discretion to appoint sub-committee chairman lie within the committee, or in the instructions from the assembly?

I don't see that as an issue at all. A sub-committee is just a committee of a committee and so they may choose their chairman if it is not done so by the committee. But as Mr. Tesser pointed out, that is getting off topic. The reason I asked the question was because it appears that the same arguments people are using concerning co-chairs would apply to vice-chairs, but I suspect that many parliamentarians have never considered it an issue when a committee elected a vice-chair. 

 

As long as the vice-chair is just filling in for chair when needed, I don't see a problem with it. And though I don't like the concept of co-chairs, that sentiment seems to apply to co-chairs as well. Where it becomes an issue is when these positions start having an impact outside of the committee. It would be just as much of an issue if the bylaws stated that chairs and vice-chairs were on the board. A committee for which a vice-chair hadn't been appointed could elect one and get another seat on the board. Or a committee of five might have a chair, and first, second, third and fourth vice-chairs, so that everyone was on the board.

 

But I suspect the whole problem is that the PTA's concept of a chairman is messed up. If so, whatever they put in the bylaws about co-chairs is going to be messed up too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...