Rules Regarding Committees of Voluntary Members

[Guest Lorry Wagner]

Referencing a committee within a non-profit (not-for-profit) organization, I cannot find any address to the situation of having a committee of volunteers and how to replace a member who has vacated their position. Are there any or do we just ask for another volunteer to replace.

Second problem is we have incidence of the President sitting automatically as ex-officio a member and then also "appointed" himself as a member. Don't ask...probably haven't had such a problem arise before. Anyway, this president term-limited out and has been replaced, thus is no longer ex-officio. He refuses to volunteer as a member since most of us consider his appointment as a member to hold a second position on this Committee is "out of order" and is causing chaos interfering with this committee's finishing the assigned task. Is there any provision to back up declaring this obnoxious person as off this committee?

Would really appreciate some sanity here from an outside source.

Thanks and look forward to directions.

A Concerned Committee Member with 50 years of background but never came across this before.

[Guest Edgar]

Generally speaking, you would replace (or add) committee members the same way people were put on the committee in the first place. And whoever has the authority to put people on the committee probably has the authority to remove them.

[Trina]

How was the committee established and populated? Or, to put it another way, does the motion (or bylaw) establishing the committee actually say something like, "any member who wants to volunteer thereby becomes a member of the committee"?

Your second paragraph suggests that the President has authority (or believes he has authority) to appoint committee members... does such authority actually come from your bylaws, or from the motion that established the committee? Do you have language (either bylaws, or in the motion establishing the committee) that makes the President an ex-officio member (since this sort of membership doesn't just happen automatically)?

[Guest Lorry Wagner]

How was the committee established and populated? Or, to put it another way, does the motion (or bylaw) establishing the committee actually say something like, "any member who wants to volunteer thereby becomes a member of the committee"?

Your second paragraph suggests that the President has authority (or believes he has authority) to appoint committee members... does such authority actually come from your bylaws, or from the motion that established the committee? Do you have language (either bylaws, or in the motion establishing the committee) that makes the President an ex-officio member (since this sort of membership doesn't just happen automatically)?

First, thank you for taking the time to help figure this out.

This organization has had an at least 30-year plus policy that any member of the organization may volunteer for any general committee. Our Bylaws do state that the Director (in our case) is ex-officio member on all committees except our Nominating Committee. Our Bylaws only address the process of establishing the committee but does not include the accepted policy of volunteering and/or appointing. Both these latter are policies and minutes containing such motions date back to the late '70's/early '80's and have been lost in time since we cover a large area and have no "headquarters" for files. We are currently updating our Bylaws (current Bylaws were approved in 1996) to reflect allowing electronic notification, etc., and we ran into this problem. It is an internal problem resulting from not getting an election to provide desired results by our problem child, but we are trying to be sure we proceed correctly since we stipulate we follow Robert's Rules with the only exceptions provided in our Bylaws.

I have the 7th Revision of Robert's Rules but am getting dizzy trying to follow the process of construction a special committy with one objective. Thank you so much for any help you can share.

[Guest Lorry Wagner]

Oh, this committee was established by members volunteering to serve on this special committee.

[Josh Martin]

First, thank you for taking the time to help figure this out.

This organization has had an at least 30-year plus policy that any member of the organization may volunteer for any general committee. Our Bylaws do state that the Director (in our case) is ex-officio member on all committees except our Nominating Committee. Our Bylaws only address the process of establishing the committee but does not include the accepted policy of volunteering and/or appointing. Both these latter are policies and minutes containing such motions date back to the late '70's/early '80's and have been lost in time since we cover a large area and have no "headquarters" for files. We are currently updating our Bylaws (current Bylaws were approved in 1996) to reflect allowing electronic notification, etc., and we ran into this problem. It is an internal problem resulting from not getting an election to provide desired results by our problem child, but we are trying to be sure we proceed correctly since we stipulate we follow Robert's Rules with the only exceptions provided in our Bylaws.

The rule you adopted to permit members to serve on committees simply by volunteering may be rescinded or amended. Since this seems to work well for your society most of the time, the society could simply amend the rule to provide that members may be removed by a vote of the membership (or through whatever process you prefer). Of course, you will likely need to rewrite the rule due to your record-keeping problems. The motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

I have the 7th Revision of Robert's Rules but am getting dizzy trying to follow the process of construction a special committy with one objective.

I don't believe it will make much difference with your current problem (which has more to do with your society's customized rules), but it still may be a good idea to update at some point. The current edition is the 11th edition. The 7th edition is from 1970.

[Guest Edgar]

This organization has had an at least 30-year plus policy that any member of the organization may volunteer for any general committee.

The rule you adopted to permit members to serve on committees simply by volunteering may be rescinded or amended.

I suspect the 30-year policy is more of a custom than the result of a formally adopted motion.

What puzzles me is why the president (who "refuses to volunteer"), or anyone else for that matter, thinks there's some substantive difference between serving on a committee as a (self-) appointed member and serving as a volunteer.

[Guest Lorry Wagner]

The rule you adopted to permit members to serve on committees simply by volunteering may be rescinded or amended. Since this seems to work well for your society most of the time, the society could simply amend the rule to provide that members may be removed by a vote of the membership (or through whatever process you prefer). Of course, you will likely need to rewrite the rule due to your record-keeping problems. The motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

I don't believe it will make much difference with your current problem (which has more to do with your society's customized rules), but it still may be a good idea to update at some point. The current edition is the 11th edition. The 7th edition is from 1970.

Oops, the 7th edition is the one I've had for years, It is, indeed, the 11th edition I just got.

Again, thank you for the information on the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. We need to do just that. I'm always amazed at you folks who have truly studied this area and always have the answers that we "lesser knowledgable" would never find..

[Guest Lorry Wagner]

I suspect the 30-year policy is more of a custom than the result of a formally adopted motion.

What puzzles me is why the president (who "refuses to volunteer"), or anyone else for that matter, thinks there's some substantive difference between serving on a committee as a (self-) appointed member and serving as a volunteer.

The problem arose when this person held the position of Director and thus was automatically as per our Bylaws ex-officio a member of all our committees with the exception of the Nominating Committee, but may not vote except in the case of a tie. When in that positon that person "also" appointed theirself to the committee as a regular member with a vote. The committee honored the ex-officio position but not appointment as a member.

That person termed out and is now Immediate Past Director, thus losing the position of ex-officio a member on our committees. This particular Bylaws Updating committee is of the position that this person must "volunteer" as the rest of the members have in order to be consistent in the process to serve on this committee and we have issued the written invitation to do just that. He refuses to do so insisting he appointed himself, etc., etc. This would not ordinarily be an issue in that we would welcome any member truly interested in contributing to the best interests of our organization and never be nit picky. However, this particular person is extremely nasty, disruptive and in his term as Director tried to take over like a dictator with such vengence many of our good and dedicated members just stepped to the inactive background until the storm passed and that's just skimming the general top of the problems and unrest caused by this person.

In trying to deal with this issue, as a member of this committee, and because the person we are having to deal with holds a license as a lawyer (yes, there have been threats of lawsuits against individuals and the organization), we have to be sure of the right way to move forward to solve the problem and regain the peace, cordiality between members and the pleasant atmosphere which is necessary to keep a volunteer organization working together.

So, I have come to the experts to help put me on the right track to do just that.

[Guest Lorry Wagner]

Oh, I should have also explained that this person refused to follow Bylaws, our in-place motions and policies...just threw same away or deliberately went against same. Most volunteers will simply not work in such an atmosphere. We have chosen our battle here because we do not want to set a precident of acquascing to anyone in the future depending on past precident of allowing the blatant thwarting of our organization's conduct under those above-stated areas.

Boy! Does anyone else have trouble entering the security check? I seem to have to retry 6 or 7 times and I do believe my eyesight is not that bad.

[Guest Edgar]

Boy! Does anyone else have trouble entering the security check? I seem to have to retry 6 or 7 times and I do believe my eyesight is not that bad.

I feel your pain. Unfortunately, the powers-that-be seem to have little interest in changing the hideous CAPTCHA code to one that's more hospitable to our guests.

[Guest Edgar]

This particular Bylaws Updating committee is of the position that this person must "volunteer" as the rest of the members have in order to be consistent in the process to serve on this committee and we have issued the written invitation to do just that. He refuses to do so insisting he appointed himself, etc., etc.

I'm afraid I still fail to see any substantive difference between volunteering and appointing oneself to the committee. Every member who volunteered appointed himself to the committee.

[Trina]

First, thank you for taking the time to help figure this out.

This organization has had an at least 30-year plus policy that any member of the organization may volunteer for any general committee. Our Bylaws do state that the Director (in our case) is ex-officio member on all committees except our Nominating Committee. Our Bylaws only address the process of establishing the committee but does not include the accepted policy of volunteering and/or appointing. Both these latter are policies and minutes containing such motions date back to the late '70's/early '80's and have been lost in time since we cover a large area and have no "headquarters" for files. We are currently updating our Bylaws...

So, is volunteering the only process by which members end up on committees (with the exception of the ex-officio status of the Director)? You say "volunteering and/or appointing" -- is there also an appointment process that is part of your policies? If the Director doesn't actually have the authority to appoint committee members, then you could argue that his appointment (of himself) to the committee is null and void.

Even if he did have the authority to appoint, I think it is improper to appoint someone to a committee a second time... In other words, the Director was already an ex-officio member of the committee, as per your written bylaws. Your bylaws apparently also specify that this particular ex-officio committee member (the Director) may not vote except in the case of a tie (ex-officio members have exactly the same rights as any other members according to RONR, but the specific language in your bylaws supersedes the rule in RONR). I don't see how it could be proper for the Director to appoint himself to the committee as a member with full voting rights, given the language in the bylaws. He certainly can't be a member twice over. You may want to take a look at the Principles of Bylaws Interpretation (RONR 11th ed. pp. 588-591) -- it seems to me that principles 3, 4, 5 may be potentially relevant. Thus, even if he had the power of appointment, a strong argument could be made that his appointment of himself (thus trying to do an end run around the bylaws) is null and void.

Oh, this committee was established by members volunteering to serve on this special committee.

The problem arose when this person held the position of Director and thus was automatically as per our Bylaws ex-officio a member of all our committees with the exception of the Nominating Committee, but may not vote except in the case of a tie. When in that positon that person "also" appointed theirself to the committee as a regular member with a vote. The committee honored the ex-officio position but not appointment as a member.

That person termed out and is now Immediate Past Director, thus losing the position of ex-officio a member on our committees. This particular Bylaws Updating committee is of the position that this person must "volunteer" as the rest of the members have in order to be consistent in the process to serve on this committee and we have issued the written invitation to do just that. He refuses to do so insisting he appointed himself, etc., etc.

...

A point of order could be raised that the appointment was improper in the first place. If the (current) chair rules against the point of order, an appeal from the ruling of the chair could be made, and then the assembly decides the question.

Of course, your troublemaker could then follow your traditional volunteer route, and still put himself on the committee. As Mr. Martin suggested, you may want to change your rules so that it is actually possible to remove someone from a committee.

...

Boy! Does anyone else have trouble entering the security check? I seem to have to retry 6 or 7 times and I do believe my eyesight is not that bad.

The CAPTCHA code is universally acknowledged to be a pain in the you-know-what. If you care to join the forum as a member (a simple process, and no ads or sales pitches will ensue) you wouldn't have to negotiate the security check in the future (just FYI).

[Trina]

I'm afraid I still fail to see any substantive difference between volunteering and appointing oneself to the committee. Every member who volunteered appointed himself to the committee.

I think the goal is to find solid ground (solid, in terms of rules being broken) on which to take a stand against the troublesome member. If enough members can agree on this particular solid ground, that's important in itself. Also, I don't think the Director could appoint himself (since he was already an ex-officio member of the committee at the time the appointment). Yes, he could appoint himself now (by volunteering), but he refuses to do so...

[Dan Honemann]

So, is volunteering the only process by which members end up on committees (with the exception of the ex-officio status of the Director)? You say "volunteering and/or appointing" -- is there also an appointment process that is part of your policies? If the Director doesn't actually have the authority to appoint committee members, then you could argue that his appointment (of himself) to the committee is null and void.

Even if he did have the authority to appoint, I think it is improper to appoint someone to a committee a second time... In other words, the Director was already an ex-officio member of the committee, as per your written bylaws. Your bylaws apparently also specify that this particular ex-officio committee member (the Director) may not vote except in the case of a tie (ex-officio members have exactly the same rights as any other members according to RONR, but the specific language in your bylaws supersedes the rule in RONR). I don't see how it could be proper for the Director to appoint himself to the committee as a member with full voting rights, given the language in the bylaws. He certainly can't be a member twice over. You may want to take a look at the Principles of Bylaws Interpretation (RONR 11th ed. pp. 588-591) -- it seems to me that principles 3, 4, 5 may be potentially relevant. Thus, even if he had the power of appointment, a strong argument could be made that his appointment of himself (thus trying to do an end run around the bylaws) is null and void.

A point of order could be raised that the appointment was improper in the first place. If the (current) chair rules against the point of order, an appeal from the ruling of the chair could be made, and then the assembly decides the question.

Of course, your troublemaker could then follow your traditional volunteer route, and still put himself on the committee. As Mr. Martin suggested, you may want to change your rules so that it is actually possible to remove someone from a committee.

The CAPTCHA code is universally acknowledged to be a pain in the you-know-what. If you care to join the forum as a member (a simple process, and no ads or sales pitches will ensue) you wouldn't have to negotiate the security check in the future (just FYI).

Well, since Lorry Wagner tells us that the organization has an applicable rule on this subject, but no one knows exactly what it is, I think that Mr. Martin's response is the only useful one that can be offered.

[Trina]

Well, since Lorry Wagner tells us that the organization has an applicable rule on this subject, but no one knows exactly what it is, I think that Mr. Martin's response is the only useful one that can be offered.

You're suggesting that the organization's applicable rule may actually allow a person to be a committee member twice over (once ex-officio with restricted voting rights, and a second time as a regular member with full voting rights)? I guess that is possible (a possibility which had not occurred to me).

I still don't see how a 'policy' (not part of the bylaws, and apparently not even findable in written form within the organization) could allow this kind of double membership, given that the bylaws (as Lorry Wagner described) specifically say that the Director will be an ex-officio member of the committee, with limited voting rights).

[Guest Edgar]

I don't think the Director could appoint himself (since he was already an ex-officio member of the committee at the time the appointment).

FWIW, I agree. Especially as it seems to have been a tactic to circumvent the rule restricting the voting rights of ex-officio members.

I think the goal is to find solid ground (solid, in terms of rules being broken) on which to take a stand against the troublesome member.

I agree that some members are looking for a way, any way, to keep this person off the committee. (I think I probably would too!) I'm just not sure how solid the ground is at this point. It seems a bit silly to try to keep someone off a committee that anyone can join simply because he refuses to utter the "V-word" (which, of course, is silly on his part too).

[Guest Guest]

So, is volunteering the only process by which members end up on committees (with the exception of the ex-officio status of the Director)? You say "volunteering and/or appointing" -- is there also an appointment process that is part of your policies? If the Director doesn't actually have the authority to appoint committee members, then you could argue that his appointment (of himself) to the committee is null and void.

Even if he did have the authority to appoint, I think it is improper to appoint someone to a committee a second time... In other words, the Director was already an ex-officio member of the committee, as per your written bylaws. Your bylaws apparently also specify that this particular ex-officio committee member (the Director) may not vote except in the case of a tie (ex-officio members have exactly the same rights as any other members according to RONR, but the specific language in your bylaws supersedes the rule in RONR). I don't see how it could be proper for the Director to appoint himself to the committee as a member with full voting rights, given the language in the bylaws. He certainly can't be a member twice over. You may want to take a look at the Principles of Bylaws Interpretation (RONR 11th ed. pp. 588-591) -- it seems to me that principles 3, 4, 5 may be potentially relevant. Thus, even if he had the power of appointment, a strong argument could be made that his appointment of himself (thus trying to do an end run around the bylaws) is null and void.

A point of order could be raised that the appointment was improper in the first place. If the (current) chair rules against the point of order, an appeal from the ruling of the chair could be made, and then the assembly decides the question.

Of course, your troublemaker could then follow your traditional volunteer route, and still put himself on the committee. As Mr. Martin suggested, you may want to change your rules so that it is actually possible to remove someone from a committee.

The CAPTCHA code is universally acknowledged to be a pain in the you-know-what. If you care to join the forum as a member (a simple process, and no ads or sales pitches will ensue) you wouldn't have to negotiate the security check in the future (just FYI).

Oh, thank you. I will join as a member.

[Josh Martin]

I agree that some members are looking for a way, any way, to keep this person off the committee. (I think I probably would too!) I'm just not sure how solid the ground is at this point. It seems a bit silly to try to keep someone off a committee that anyone can join simply because he refuses to utter the "V-word" (which, of course, is silly on his part too).

I completely agree. It would be more advisable for the society to amend the rule so that there is a clear path to removal rather than argue over semantics.

[lorry]

I completely agree. It would be more advisable for the society to amend the rule so that there is a clear path to removal rather than argue over semantics.

I "thought" I had answered this thinking earlier but somehow my answer was not put up.

This committee and most of the other members of the Board of Delegates understand that the exodus of this person would bring peace. But we also understand that as a member this person has every right that do all the rest of us. What we are trying to accomplish, since this is the first possible opening we have had in the last 4 years is to bring forth the facts that everyone must follow rules, policies, Bylaws, etc. which this person has blatently defied all that time. We want to be sure to bring forth understanding that if one doesn't follow all the above, one will be set down.

Please understand this person was asked to join in the same capacity as the rest of us on this committee by volunteering since their ex-officio position was no longer valid. The response was that "I appointed myself and that's that"...his usual defiance of proper policy/procedure. We do not want to see the shenigans of this lawyer (who seems to threaten to sue whenever he doesn't get his way) set any kind of a precedent. That's why we are searching for the right way to make him understand he has to do it right or will not be recognized. I believe with all the input on this thread we have found that way, along with some other great points we will address in our Bylaws update. I thank you all for sharing your knowledge.

[Josh Martin]

I "thought" I had answered this thinking earlier but somehow my answer was not put up.

This committee and most of the other members of the Board of Delegates understand that the exodus of this person would bring peace. But we also understand that as a member this person has every right that do all the rest of us. What we are trying to accomplish, since this is the first possible opening we have had in the last 4 years is to bring forth the facts that everyone must follow rules, policies, Bylaws, etc. which this person has blatently defied all that time. We want to be sure to bring forth understanding that if one doesn't follow all the above, one will be set down.

Please understand this person was asked to join in the same capacity as the rest of us on this committee by volunteering since their ex-officio position was no longer valid. The response was that "I appointed myself and that's that"...his usual defiance of proper policy/procedure. We do not want to see the shenigans of this lawyer (who seems to threaten to sue whenever he doesn't get his way) set any kind of a precedent. That's why we are searching for the right way to make him understand he has to do it right or will not be recognized. I believe with all the input on this thread we have found that way, along with some other great points we will address in our Bylaws update. I thank you all for sharing your knowledge.

I hope I'm understanding correctly that your goal is to remove the member from the committee because of his longstanding disrespect for the assembly's rules and because of his disruptive behavior, and not simply because he won't use the exact words "I volunteer."

[lorry]

I hope I'm understanding correctly that your goal is to remove the member from the committee because of his longstanding disrespect for the assembly's rules and because of his disruptive behavior, and not simply because he won't use the exact words "I volunteer."

Yes, you are absolutely correct. This member must be made to understand plus made an example making it loudly understood that no member may bypass and/or ignore active motions, policies and Bylaws. Without going into specifics which are internal problems, many of these governing areas have been violated/bypassed/ignored that are far more important to the organization in that said practices have impacted the organization in very negative ways. This is simply the first opportunity we have had to formally and correctly address such an issue now that the elections are over and more knowledgeable voting members finally out number those who just follow-the-leader without any care for the organization.

Again, thanks to all here who have certainly been a big help.