Approving expenses

[Guest ER]

If our constitution only lays our that checks must be signed by our president and VP of finance, do they have sole authority to approve expenses, or does the approval of expenses require a vote of the executive board?

Again, our constitution does not lay out a procedure for approving expenses. We do follow RONR.

[Josh Martin]

If our constitution only lays our that checks must be signed by our president and VP of finance, do they have sole authority to approve expenses, or does the approval of expenses require a vote of the executive board?

Again, our constitution does not lay out a procedure for approving expenses. We do follow RONR.

So far as RONR is concerned, all power lays with the general membership, and other parties (the Executive Board, the President, the VP of Finance, etc.) only have such power as delegated by the membership or by the organization's rules. As for interpreting your Constitution, that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

[Trina]

If our constitution only lays our that checks must be signed by our president and VP of finance, do they have sole authority to approve expenses, or does the approval of expenses require a vote of the executive board?

Again, our constitution does not lay out a procedure for approving expenses. We do follow RONR.

The authority to sign checks ('checks must be signed by ...') does not mean authority to make all spending decisions. That's not an opinion from RONR -- it's just a comment on the common sense meaning of those words. Just because an organization's treasurer (or VP of Finance in your case) is given signature authority for the organization's bank account (a very common practice), that obviously doesn't mean the treasurer now has authority to spend that money in any way he pleases... right?