Guest Malcolm Landry Posted August 18, 2012 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 at 11:47 PM I belong to a board with 11 members that has a President presiding.one member wants to switch the bylaws to a chairman presiding. He says a chairman has less power and control than a President.Can you lead me to the answer to this question, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM Report Share Posted August 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM I belong to a board with 11 members that has a President presiding.one member wants to switch the bylaws to a chairman presiding. He says a chairman has less power and control than a President.Can you lead me to the answer to this question, please.I don't know what the question is, but no matter what name is used, the presiding officer is referred to as the chair. Changing the name of the officer will have no effect on the amount of power he has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 19, 2012 at 02:01 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 at 02:01 PM one member wants to switch the bylaws to a chairman presiding. He says a chairman has less power and control than a President.As Mr. Wynn noted, the particular title given to a presiding officer has no bearing on his "power and control".However if an organization (i.e. the general membership) has a "President" as its presiding officer (which is usually the case), it will often designate the presiding officer of its board as a "Chairman" (e.g. "Chairman of the Board"), thus avoiding any confusion arising from having two "presidents". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted August 19, 2012 at 03:28 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 at 03:28 PM You can have two separate officers - a President and a Chairman, or have one position named either "President" or "Chairman". Regardless of whether or not you have one position or two, only the By-laws (and any later motions if necessary) will provide specific powers to the position or positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 19, 2012 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 at 05:24 PM You can have two separate officers - a President and a Chairman, or have one position named either "President" or "Chairman". Regardless of whether or not you have one position or two, only the By-laws (and any later motions if necessary) will provide specific powers to the position or positions.Bylaws generally defer to RONR for duties of officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted August 19, 2012 at 09:34 PM Report Share Posted August 19, 2012 at 09:34 PM I belong to a board with 11 members that has a President presiding.one member wants to switch the bylaws to a chairman presiding. He says a chairman has less power and control than a President.Can you lead me to the answer to this question, please.I might consider asking this member for something suporting this position/opinion. I doubt there is any at all.I am a member of a board (currently 7 members) where we now have a Chair (or Chairman). many years ago, we had this position as "President", but with identical powers, duties,and so on. For various reasons, we just changed the name of the position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Armando65 Posted August 20, 2012 at 02:33 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 02:33 PM I am the member that has made the suggestion and it was purely for semantics so to speak. The board/commission is a non-profit organization that make decisions regarding a recreational sports complex. My thoughts were that the title, "President," implies executive authority. "Chairman" implies the running of meetings and deciding upon the agenda we will follow at our meetings. Since we do not have an executive position and no one person has the authority to make major decisions for our facility, I felt like the title of "Chairman" was more appropriate. All action, aside from minor day to day operations taken by our hired director is decided upon by our board as a whole. Anyway, like I said in the beginning, my suggested change is more for clarifying an implied meaning of the title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:58 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 03:58 PM I think the term/title "President" is the US has changed its meaning/perception over the decades. Literally (I think) a "President" is one who "presides" (over something like a meeting or a group. Presidents of the US certainly no longer just "preside", nor do "Presidents" of corporations. Because of that shift, it is increasingly confusing when the person who "presides: at a board meeting is the President and not the Chair(man). Likewise, if the person who runs the operation is not called the President (or perhaps CEO), that also is incresingly confusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:14 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 04:14 PM I am the member that has made the suggestion and it was purely for semantics so to speak. The board/commission is a non-profit organization that make decisions regarding a recreational sports complex. My thoughts were that the title, "President," implies executive authority. "Chairman" implies the running of meetings and deciding upon the agenda we will follow at our meetings. Since we do not have an executive position and no one person has the authority to make major decisions for our facility, I felt like the title of "Chairman" was more appropriate. All action, aside from minor day to day operations taken by our hired director is decided upon by our board as a whole. Anyway, like I said in the beginning, my suggested change is more for clarifying an implied meaning of the title.According to RONR, neither president nor chairman "decides upon the agenda to follow" in a meeting or "has the authority to make major decisions," except for making necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law.It gets to be a problem for an organization when members, instead of reading the rules, make assumptions about what powers an individual has based on a perception of a job title that apparently has been crafted from watching political ads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Armando65 Posted August 20, 2012 at 05:17 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 05:17 PM According to RONR, neither president nor chairman "decides upon the agenda to follow" in a meeting or "has the authority to make major decisions," except for making necessary rulings on questions of parliamentary law.It gets to be a problem for an organization when members, instead of reading the rules, make assumptions about what powers an individual has based on a perception of a job title that apparently has been crafted from watching political ads. Tim, I couldn't agree more. My thoughts were that with no one else actually reading the bylaws (or paying attention to them if they have), that it might be best to avoid the problem of having someone elected by the board to the position of "President" thinking they have executive authority when they don't. Having a Chairman does not technically change the responsibilities of the office but it could reduce the possibility of the person holding the poistion from thinking they have authority that they do not. Fortunately, that is not an issue with our current "President" but I am considering the long term best interest of our organization. Today's "volunteers" have many demands on their time and I can't say I blame them for not fully understanding bylaws or RONR. I keep my copy with me at every board meeting I attend for the various organizations I serve to use as a reference. However, I certainly don't proclaim to be proficient at sticking to every detail or even knowing how each individual issue should be addressed. BTW, I and the Vice-President and would like to become the Vice-Chairman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:04 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:04 PM BTW, I [am] the Vice-President and would like to become the Vice-Chairman!As long as you're also willing to become the President (or Chairman) should the need arise. You'd be surprised (or not) at how often we get questions which begin, "Our President has resigned (or died) and our Vice-president doesn't want to be President . . . ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:35 PM Having a Chairman does not technically change the responsibilities of the office but it could reduce the possibility of the person holding the poistion from thinking they have authority that they do not. !Probably the best way to accomplish that goal is to become familiar with the provisions of RONR/RONRIB and follow them, rather than changing a name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted August 20, 2012 at 07:55 PM Probably the best way to accomplish that goal is to become familiar with the provisions of RONR/RONRIB and follow them, rather than changing a name.Although following the provisions of RONR might entail changing the names of officers to conform with standard practice. There's a lot to be said for calling the president of the organization the President, and calling the chairman of the board the Chairman. Otherwise you'll be spending a lot of time here trying to explain just what the Moderator, or the Commodore, does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.