Guest Peggy Posted December 17, 2012 at 08:06 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 at 08:06 PM Our board members have the authority to spend up to $1100 on their individual committees without prior board approval. When it comes to yearly contracts over that amount the board must approve it. My question is who should sign these contracts to make them legal? In any legal matters such as insurance and/or deed transfers the president is required to sign with the secretary attesting to the president's signature.A board member has entered into and signed two contracts without board approval one for $13K and the other for $28K and we have just found this out. these matters came up for discussion and he was told to "get 3 bids" he got none and he himself signed the contracts with these companies. Lower bids have now been found by another board member.What is our procedure now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted December 17, 2012 at 08:09 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 at 08:09 PM My question is who should sign these contracts to make them legal? In any legal matters such as insurance and/or deed transfers the president is required to sign with the secretary attesting to the president's signature.It seems you may have asked and answered your own question. If not, you should consult an attorney, not a parliamentarian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted December 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM Report Share Posted December 17, 2012 at 11:27 PM At this point, the board member would be on the hook for those contracts, not your organization.Seek legal advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 at 11:14 AM At this point, the board member would be on the hook for those contracts, not your organization.Seek legal advice.The second sentence of this response provides sound advice (see also the advice to consult an attorney, not a parliamentarian, found in post #2). which is why it would be best to simply ignore the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted December 19, 2012 at 03:23 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 at 03:23 PM The second sentence of this response provides sound advice (see also the advice to consult an attorney, not a parliamentarian, found in post #2). which is why it would be best to simply ignore the first. ...or amend it, by striking "would", and inserting "might". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 19, 2012 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 at 03:29 PM ...or amend it, by striking "would", and inserting "might".... although it it would still be best to simply ignore the first sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sMargaret Posted December 19, 2012 at 03:36 PM Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 at 03:36 PM Or I could have just kept my first version of that first sentence, which was "At this point, the board member may well be on the hook for those contracts, not your organization (as once happened in an organization I was on)." From a parliamentary stand point, the board member was acting outside the scope of their authority, and therefore would be responsible. Unfortunately, the parliamentary point of view is not the most important point of view at this time. Darn lack of time machines around here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.