Idle Speculation

[BryanSullo]

It seems that the nasty problems, that so frequently pop up, with presidents acting against the will of the membership are made more difficult to remedy by the fact that RONR's default position is that the presiding officer of the membership is also be the president of the executive board. [RONR (11th ed.), p. 577, ll. 15-17]

It seems that a little separation of powers might be prudent. Is there a reasoning behind this arrangement, or is it just a case of always-been-done-that-way?

Like I said . . . idle speculation.

[Guest Edgar]

While this might be a "default" position, I don't think RONR is suggesting it's preferable to any other arrangement. It's just one of a number of things that happen if the bylaws (intentionally or, more likely, unintentionally) fail to address the issue.

Would you prefer the default rule to be that the president of the association could not be the chairman of the board? Or even that he should not be? I think RONR's intention is to keep the defaults as minimalistic as possible.

Anyway, it seems perfectly normal to me that the group of people authorized to act on behalf of the organization between meetings of the general membership would include the officers who are already individually authorized to make substantive decisions.

[Rev Ed]

And remember, with the exception of running the meeting (which the members of the group meeting actually control), the responsibilities and duties of a President are only those given to him by the By-laws. If the By-laws don't give the Presient a certain power, then the President does not have the power.

[BryanSullo]

And remember, with the exception of running the meeting (which the members of the group meeting actually control), the responsibilities and duties of a President are only those given to him by the By-laws. If the By-laws don't give the Presient a certain power, then the President does not have the power.

True, but in many societies, the membership barely know what a motion and a second is. They rely on the presiding officer to make sure they know their rights and responsibilities. (And, yes, I know it is a member's responsibility to know his rights, but most couldn't care less about the arcane art of parliamentary procedure.) If the presiding officer is also the president, and if that person is a little power-hungry, it's very easy to fail to mention certain points that might go against his or her agenda.

As a moderator, without any other responsibilities, I'm in a position to act as an advocate for the membership, and keep the board in check, without any conflicting interests. It seems like a good model, and I'm just wondering why it's not the "standard" model. Perhaps the advantages of having one person with dual responsibilities outweighs the advantages of splitting them up.

[Guest Edgar]

It seems like a good model, and I'm just wondering why it's not the "standard" model.

Well, it kind of is the standard model. A deliberative assembly starts out with no board at all and a president whose only authority is to preside at meetings. Everything else is added by the assembly.