ex officio member on a committee

[Guest Julia Hess]

We have a standing committee with a 5 member limit (established in the by laws).  If we invite someone to serve as an ex officio member of the committee do they count toward the limit?  Secondarily, can the serve as co-chair of the committee? They are a member of the organization.  

[Gary Novosielski]

If the bylaws limit membership to 5, then 5 is the limit. 

Besides, you can't "invite" or disinvite someone to be an ex-officio member; ex-officio membership occurs by virtue of an office they already hold, and a rule making the person holding that office a member, not as a result of an invitation.  Ex-officio members, if they do exist, would be full members and count toward the 5 member limit.

Co-chairs or co-anythings are prohibited by RONR.  And there is no requirement that a committee member be a member of the organization.  Your bylaws may vary.

Edited February 21, 2018 at 10:25 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

16 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Co-chairs or co-anythings are prohibited by RONR.

While I otherwise agree with Mr. Novosielski's response, I think this statement goes a bit too far. What RONR actually says is only this: "The anomalous title 'co-chairman' should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position" (RONR pg. 176, ll. 3-6).

First, the word "should" does not rise to the level of "prohibiting." And second, since that is the only reference to a "co-anything" that I am aware of in the entire book, I'm not sure it is fair to say that RONR even speaks to, let alone prohibits, anything other than co-chairs. The same principle would clearly apply, though, which is that if the position includes any sort of delegated authority, that authority hasn't been clearly delegated if it is still shared by more than one person at a time. Therefore, RONR's clear preference is for a "vice-chair," rather than a "co-chair."

Edited February 22, 2018 at 03:23 PM by Greg Goodwiller

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Goodwiller. The way I read RONR, it strongly discourages having co-chairs co-anythings, but it does not actually prohibit the practice.

[Gary Novosielski]

In the case of officers, the question doesn't come up, since officers must be listed in the bylaws, and if the bylaws say "Treasurer" then there must be a Treasurer, not two co-treasurers.

I've edited the language on co-chairs, but are we saying that in a society with, say, the RONR Sample bylaws, if a committee is established by the assembly, with appointment by the president, and the president on his own initiative attempts to appoint co-chairs, that a member may not raise a point of order against the practice?  All the rules in RONR assume that committees will have a chairman.

 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In the case of officers, the question doesn't come up, since officers must be listed in the bylaws, and if the bylaws say "Treasurer" then there must be a Treasurer, not two co-treasurers.

I've edited the language on co-chairs, but are we saying that in a society with, say, the RONR Sample bylaws, if a committee is established by the assembly, with appointment by the president, and the president on his own initiative attempts to appoint co-chairs, that a member may not raise a point of order against the practice?  All the rules in RONR assume that committees will have a chairman.

Yes, and the committee quite certainly must have only one “chairman” in the sense the term is used in RONR - that is, one of them will be the regular presiding officer, and certainly only one of them will be presiding at any given time. But if a committee wants to say that it has two “co-chairs,” I do not think this violates any rule in RONR. Generally, when a committee has “co-chairs,” one of them is still the “chair” in the parliamentary sense. It is usually intended to split the administrative duties, and/or to serve as an honorific. This device is especially used when the co-chairs represent different groups, and the society does not wish to show favoritism. (Just to be clear - I do not personally think co-chairs are a good idea.)

So in the example you presented, if a member raised a Point of Order, I think the chair should rule the point not well taken. If these two co-chairs actually try to preside at the same time, then the member would have grounds for a Point of Order.

The member could, if he wished, make a motion prohibiting the use of co-chairs, either for this committee or for all committees.