Proper way to handle negotiations between multiple committees?

[BrianV]

I'm involved with a non-profit private school. We are a Society with a Board of Directors and a Financial Administration standing committee. I am on the Financial Administration committee.

Our organisation has employees (teachers) who have the right to negotiate their contract with us. So, on a bi-annual basis, a special Contracts committee is formed to handle the contract negotiation. The committee consists of our treasurer, two representatives from the teachers, and two representatives from our school community (who are *usually* society members), one of which is chair.

The Board makes the final determination on the offered contracts, but requires input and recommendations regarding financial feasibility from the Financial Administration committee. The process has been muddled for years, so I am trying to figure out how this *should* be according to RROR. 

At this point, I only have the 1915 version at hand, though I am working to correct that!. However, from what I understand, it should work like this:

• The Contracts committee is formed to handle negotiations with the teacher and develop a suitable contract proposal.
• The Contracts committee submits a report back to the Board with resolution for a proposed contract.
• The report is received by the board, and a motion made to accept the resolution.
• A motion is made to commit the motion to the Finance committee for review
• Finance reports back with information regarding the feasibility of the contract and a resolution with either the original contract or a revised contract to be adopted.
• Board moves to accept the finance committee resolutions. Motion made to commit it back to the Contract committee (if needed).
• ad infinitum until both sides agree (ie, an unamended contract motion comes back from one side).
• Board accepts the resolution from the report and offers the contract.

Would this be the proper process in this situation? The main shortcoming I see is this would require many more meetings that the current process. Alternatively, should the Contracts committee instead be a subcommittee of the Finance committee?

I would really appreciate any recommendations so we can clean up the process in years ahead.

 

[Josh Martin]

39 minutes ago, BrianV said:

Would this be the proper process in this situation?

Yes, I think so, although it does not necessarily need to be “ad infinitum until both sides agree.” The board could resolve the differences itself, if it wishes to do so.

41 minutes ago, BrianV said:

Alternatively, should the Contracts committee instead be a subcommittee of the Finance committee?

That is up to the board. This would simplify the process, but it would mean the Finance Committee has authority over the Contracts Subcommittee. It is not clear whether that is a desired outcome.

[BrianV]

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

That is up to the board. This would simplify the process, but it would mean the Finance Committee has authority over the Contracts Subcommittee. It is not clear whether that is a desired outcome.

Thank you for your response! I believe ROR suggests that a subcomittee should primarily be made up of the parent committee's members, which in this case would happen as only the Treasurer overlaps... I think most would object to the additional meetings this would all require. 

That said, it's good to have an idea of what the proper way to move forward would be. 

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, BrianV said:

Thank you for your response! I believe ROR suggests that a subcomittee should primarily be made up of the parent committee's members, which in this case would happen as only the Treasurer overlaps... I think most would object to the additional meetings this would all require. 

That said, it's good to have an idea of what the proper way to move forward would be. 

It is usual for a subcommittee to consist entirely of members of the committee, but the board may authorize members outside the committee to serve on the subcommittee if it wishes.