Wife serving as temporary replacement on committees

[Timothy]

At a meeting, a man who is serving on more than one committee informed the organization that he would be unable to attend committee meetings for the next few weeks because of his job. He then requested that his wife be allowed to serve in his place. The organization eventually voted it down, but there were several different views on the subject. One man believed the motion out of order because the Nominating Committee had nominated the man to serve on two of the committees. Another believed that since the organization had defined and elected the committees that the organization had the power to allow his wife to serve in that temporary capacity. Others pointed out that other members of the committees would be unable to attend for other reasons and would not have someone to serve in their place.

 

 I’m curious what people here think of this situation. Is there a rule that might have been violated? What might have been required to do this properly? What kinds of problems might there have been if this action had been taken?

[Edgar Guest]

Firstly, the fact that this person was the committee member's wife is about as irrelevant as a fact can be.

 

Secondly, whoever has the authority to select the committee members is free to either replace the husband with the wife, add the wife, or do nothing. I recommend the latter.

 

Finally, I have to say it seems odd that your nominating committee is tasked with the responsibility of nominating people to serve on committees. Though I guess we've seen stranger things here.

[Josh Martin]

Is there a rule that might have been violated?

 

What the member was requesting was essentially for his wife to serve as his proxy, so it would have violated the rule against proxy voting.

 

What might have been required to do this properly?

 

It would either require the organization to adopt appropriate rules regarding proxies (or "alternates," as I sometimes see them called in situations like this) or, as Edgar suggests, for the assembly to actually replace the member with his wife, and then switch them back when he returned.

 

What kinds of problems might there have been if this action had been taken?

 

If the assembly followed Edgar's strategy, there wouldn't be any problems, provided that the member, his wife, and the assembly all were (and remained) agreeable to the arrangement.

 

If the assembly instead permitted the member's wife to serve as his proxy, this would be a continuing breach. This could also create a continuing breach for a vote of the committee, if she voted and her vote could have affected the result.

[Timothy]

Finally, I have to say it seems odd that your nominating committee is tasked with the responsibility of nominating people to serve on committees. Though I guess we've seen stranger things here.

 

Why do you think that odd? I've seen it done in more than one organization. In this particular organization, we have about 75 positions that are elected annually. It usually takes the Nominating Committee three months to complete their work. The meeting in which they are elected is usually fairly short. In fact, it usually takes longer to elect the Nominating Committee than all the others because the Nominating Committee is nominated from the floor.

 

 

Firstly, the fact that this person was the committee member's wife is about as irrelevant as a fact can be.

 

 

It was relevant to the man who made the request, which leads me to believe that what he intended was for his wife to be his proxy, as Josh suggested. 

 

 

If the assembly instead permitted the member's wife to serve as his proxy, this would be a continuing breach. This could also create a continuing breach for a vote of the committee, if she voted and her vote could have affected the result.

 

All the more reason for me to be glad the problem went away.