Patricia Holliday

The Bylaws are silent.

Some are chairs but others are not. For the First Vise President it states: "She shall oversee the Community Service/Social Action Committee. She shall oversee all committees that are not otherwise provided for (i.e. Ad-Hoc Committees." For the Secretary it states: "She shall oversee the Technology Committee." For the Recording Secretary it states: "She shall oversee and serve as the chair of the Public Relations Committee." For the Parliamentarian it states: "She shall Chair all committees relative to the By-Laws. She shall oversee the Standard Operating Procedures Committee. She shall provide oversight to the Nominating Committee." Those are samples of the type of language listed in the duties of elected officials.

I'm not sure if they vote. We just began our sorority year and I just came into the Parliamentarian position and raised the quorum question to the Executive Board. The ones that are the chairs definitely do and I am clear they are members of the committees they oversee. The are all members of the organization.

Unfortunately during this process I discovered there were no special rules of order created. They have been doing this as a custom practice. I plan to correct this.

These officers appear on the the reports as Committee members listed as Overseeing Officers. They also attend the meetings. The question arose when we were trying to determine quorum requirements.

Our bylaws states that the "[Secretary] shall oversee the Technology Committee." Does this makes the Secretary an ex-officio member of the that committee? We have several elected positions where the officer oversees a committee.

What is considered "noncontroversial?" I did not see a definition in RONR. A committee's request for consideration of an item to be added to the consent calendar was not approved based on metrics that was used to determine what is considered controversial. Was this inappropriate.