Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

VP at large? Is there such a thing?


Guest Beth

Recommended Posts

Can a Board have a Vice President - At Large position? And if so, what would that persons responsibilities entail/include?

Your bylaws can create whatever officers your organization wants and it can give them whatever authority and responsibility it wants.

But boards typically have a chair and, maybe, a vice-chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure! If the position is defined in the bylaws. And those bylaws had better answer your questions, too. RONR doesn't.

Another possibility is that your V-P recently broke out of jail (after incarceration for absconding with your association's funds), but I don't think that is exactly what you had in mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a Board have a Vice President - At Large position?

If the Bylaws define such a position, yes.

And if so, what would that persons responsibilities entail/include?

I have no idea, as I've never heard of such a position. The usual duties of the Vice President are to preside in the absence of the President or when the President relinquishes the chair, to become President when there is a vacancy in that position, and whatever other duties may be prescribed by the Bylaws. What the words "At-Large" mean in connection with a Vice President is beyond me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a Board have a Vice President - At Large position?

It's conceivable for an organization to consist of several districts (say, the north, south, east, and west) and the director of each district might be an ex-officio vice-president. You could then have an additional vice-president (or more) who is not associated with any district but is, instead, a vice-president at-large.

I'm not saying it's a good idea, just that it's conceivable (and it illustrates the meaning of "at large"). As noted (repeatedly), your bylaws would have to provide for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So our Board is proposing bylaw changes/amendments, one of which is to include the VP-At Large position which is defined as "shall act as an aide to the President and shall perform the duties of the President in their absence". However there is also a VP Fundraising and a VP for Special Events. This is a parent run booster organization with 501 ©3 status. I have never before seen this organizational structure, All terms of all officers are annual, with term limit of 2 consecutive terms in the same position, unless there is no one willing to serve, then a 3rd year can be voted on by the Executive Board.

So I guess my question is: Is the VP At Large position needed? or maybe perhaps it should not be called At Large but rather just a general VP? But do we need 3 VP positions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However there is also a VP Fundraising and a VP for Special Events. .....

So I guess my question is: Is the VP At Large position needed? or maybe perhaps it should not be called At Large but rather just a general VP? But do we need 3 VP positions?

Do you mean to say you don't already have a plain vanilla VP position? Assuming you don't, is there anything in the bylaws which defines the hierarchy of VPs that you do have? That is, if the President is absent from a meeting, the VP is expected to preside, and should the President leave office mid-term, the VP assumes that office. Do you know which of yours do those things (if they do at all)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never before seen this organizational structure,

I have. Some organizations do have Vice Presidents in charge of various departments of work, either in addition to or instead of the usual Vice President (or numbered Vice Presidents). This is starting to make much more sense.

So I guess my question is: Is the VP At Large position needed? or maybe perhaps it should not be called At Large but rather just a general VP? But do we need 3 VP positions?

It's up to your society to determine whether the position is needed. It is also ultimately up to your society to determine what the position is called, but using the traditional terminology is generally preferable unless there is some compelling reason to do otherwise. I take it the reasoning behind the "At Large" wording in this case is to avoid confusing this position with the other VP positions, and while I am still partial to the simple title "Vice President," I can see the logic behind that.

Do you mean to say you don't already have a plain vanilla VP position? Assuming you don't, is there anything in the bylaws which defines the hierarchy of VPs that you do have? That is, if the President is absent from a meeting, the VP is expected to preside, and should the President leave office mid-term, the VP assumes that office. Do you know which of yours do those things (if they do at all)?

I suspect these questions are the reason they are considering adding this position. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect these questions are the reason they are considering adding this position. :)

Indeed. But it might be a good recommendation to simply to call the position Vice President (without At Large) to coincide with the authorities, responsibilities and expectations of such a position as covered by RONR. To title the position Vice President At Large leaves all the subtle nuances up to the organization to detail in the bylaws, or deal with in the future when someone questions whether the VPAL should do thus and so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...