Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

ex officio members of ad hoc committees


Guest ekaymiller

Recommended Posts

Does an ex officio member of an ad hoc committee have to leave the committee once the ex officio status is over, or like any other member of the committee is he or she allowed to remain on the committee until the work is finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using an example from RONR, if the bylaws say "The President shall be ex officio a member of all committees except the Nominating Committee." whomever occupies the office of President currently is on the committee by virtue of their office. They don't automatically stay on once they no longer occupy that office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am familiar with that statement and agree that it governs this situation. My organization is working with some by-laws changes that the immediate past president initiated and is quite interested in. She and the chair of the by-laws committee have often been at odds throughout the past year. It is quite possible that the by-laws chair delayed the conclusion of the by-laws work until after the change of offices to exclude the past president. The past president, who wants to remain on the committee, argues that as an ex-officio member of an ad hoc committee, she retains the same right as any other member to remain on the committee until the work is finished. I guess I am looking for some way to allow the past president to remain on the committee until the current work is finished. Any suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If legerdemain doesn't work for you, check your minutes to get the details of the motion that established the ad hoc bylaws committee. Does it say how committee members are to be appointed, or perhaps names them. Then, at a meeting, make a motion to amend something previously adopted (p. 305) that will somehow ("how" depends on the details of the original motion) place the person, by name, not (ex officio) office, on the committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The past president, who wants to remain on the committee, argues that as an ex-officio member of an ad hoc committee, she retains the same right as any other member to remain on the committee until the work is finished.

That's not an argument, it's wishful thinking. By her "reasoning", there'd now be two past presidents on the committee, the (new) immediate past president (who belongs there) and herself. Wait a year or two and there'd be three. Then four.

(This assumes that she was an ex-officio member by virtue of being the immediate past president. If she was a member by virtue of being president, adjust my reply accordingly.)

By the way, nothing prevents the committee from continuing to solicit her advice. She's just no longer a member (i.e. she can't vote).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not an argument, it's wishful thinking. By her "reasoning", there'd now be two past presidents on the committee, the (new) immediate past president (who belongs there) and herself. Wait a year or two and there'd be three. Then four.

(This assumes that she was an ex-officio member by virtue of being the immediate past president. If she was a member by virtue of being president, adjust my reply accordingly.)

By the way, nothing prevents the committee from continuing to solicit her advice. She's just no longer a member (i.e. she can't vote).

...or presumably they could ask that she be appointed (for real, i.e., by name) to the committee.

But her argument holds no water and cuts no ice. Its effect on steam is, as yet, undetermined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was ex-officio by means of being president; she has just recently been replaced by our new president. We also have a standing rule that reads "When a special committee has not completed a project, it shall remain in place until the completion of that project even though the event takes place after the installation of the new Board."

I'm not quite sure how to "adjust your answer accordingly."

Can the new president appoint a new member to an existing committee?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She was ex-officio by means of being president; she has just recently been replaced by our new president.

Well, that's the nature of ex-officio positions: you hold them only as long as you hold the office.

We also have a standing rule that reads "When a special committee has not completed a project, it shall remain in place until the completion of that project even though the event takes place after the installation of the new Board."

Well, you'll have to figure out whether "it shall remain in place" means that none of the members can be removed.

Can the new president appoint a new member to an existing committee?

Why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which essentially brings me back to my original question although it may not be recognizable now--would the "It shall remain in place" in the by-law alllow the ex-officio member--ie., the former president--to remain on the committee. I am comfortable with the ruling that according to RR, the ex-officio member is off the committee. Would the by-law possibly overrule that? Sorry I didn't mention the by-initially. I am very new at this and just need some second opinions since my two members are arguing and I do see this as a gray area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do see this as a gray area.

Which means it's up to your organization to resolve. Personally, I'd say that, even though the committee "remains in place" until its work is done (which is pretty much the default rule anyway), the former president is out and the current president is in. Otherwise, as I suggested before, if this committee were to exist for several years, each new president would be added (you wouldn't argue against that, would you?) but none of the former presidents would ever leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. However, I don't think that all past-presidents would want to stay on committees. This is a rather unique situation because of the argument between the two members and the special interest of the past president in these by-law changes. Your response has definitely helped me structure my ruling and I really appreciate your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which essentially brings me back to my original question although it may not be recognizable now--would the "It shall remain in place" in the by-law alllow the ex-officio member--ie., the former president--to remain on the committee. I am comfortable with the ruling that according to RR, the ex-officio member is off the committee. Would the by-law possibly overrule that? Sorry I didn't mention the by-initially. I am very new at this and just need some second opinions since my two members are arguing and I do see this as a gray area.

Unless I have suddenly lost the ability to parse English sentences, the "it" in the language refers to the committee, which shall remain in place, albeit now with a different ex-officio member.

You have received a multitude of answers, all of which agree that the ex-officio position ends when the person leaving the office in question. There is no parliamentary basis to believe otherwise. There is no ambiguity. Your interpretation is not supported by reality. But you are free to try to convince (a majority of) your group that black is white, and see if they will agree with you. I see no reason why they should.

You would probably have much better luck convincing them that the former member is so valuable that she should now be appointed by name to the committee. Unlike your Plan A, that at least has a grounding in permissible procedure, according to RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

You have received a multitude of answers, all of which agree that the ex-officio position ends when the person leaving the office in question. There is no parliamentary basis to believe otherwise. There is no ambiguity. Your interpretation is not supported by reality. But you are free to try to convince (a majority of) your group that black is white, and see if they will agree with you. I see no reason why they should.

...

I don't believe the original poster has said what his/her ruling and/or interpretation will be; only that the responses in this thread have been helpful in formulating that ruling. At least that's how I read post #12.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right that I did not announce my final interpretation although I certainly did not hide the fact that I would LIKE the past president to remain on the committee. I agree that there is no basis to anybody's wish for the past president to remain on the committee and have asked the new president to consider appointing her to the committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...