creating bylaws for co-presidents

[loreen]

Our association is having trouble getting a president. Do we need to change the bylaws in order to specifically allow for co-leaders? Got any wording suggestions

[jstackpo]

Have to change the bylaws?  yes.

 

Suggestion:  Don't do it. 

 

(Send me your e-mail via the internal mail system on this board and I'll ship you a "why not" article.)

[Weldon Merritt]

Yes, you would have to amend the bylaws to provide for co-presidents. And no, I don't have any suggetsed langauge to help you implement what is a very bad idea. It is doubtful that anyone else here (at least any of the regulars) will, either.

 

As noted in RONR, at p. 176, ll. 3,6, "The anomalous title 'co-chairman' should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position." Although that passage is addressing co-chairmen of a committee, the same reasoning applies, probably even more so, to the idea of "co-presidents."

[Chris Harrison]

You would need to amend the bylaws in order to provide for co-Presidents.  However, unless you all are willing to play the parliamentary procedure version of Russian Roulette (with only one chamber empty) I wouldn't go anywhere near attempting to have them.  Otherwise, we will be getting posts from the organization every month with questions like "A Point of Order was raised and one co-President wanted to rule it Well Taken while the other wanted to rule it Not Well Taken. What do we do?" 

[Edgar Guest]

Our association is having trouble getting a president. 

 

So you think it will be easier to get two presidents?

[Guest Nancy N.]

So you think it will be easier to get two presidents?

 

Sure it will.  Their problem is with the extra-cameral duties that occupy most of the rest of the president's month, because as everyone knows, you don't need to know anything to be the president at a meeting, you can just wing it.  THat's what General Robert says in the middle of p. "xl" (Roman for "40", pronounced "quadri-dees" here in parts of Brooklyn and in places named after imaginary chemical elements like Bilomium, PA) ... right?  But lots of guys, they don't want to put up with the rest of the tedium, but if they can share the drudgery part of the job with an amenable guy, why not?

[Weldon Merritt]

But lots of guys, they don't want to put up with the rest of the tedium, but if they can share the drudgery part of the job with an amenable guy, why not?

Whjy not? Because of the "impossible dillemas" of which RONR warns (an example of which Mr. Harrisaon gave). While cerefully thought out bylaws and other governing documents might head off some of the potential problems, the reality is that most organiztions that decide to have co-presidents (or co-anything) don't anticipate the problems and are unprepared for them. A more carefully thought out plan would be to transfer some of the president's extra-cameral duties to one or more vice presidents or other officers. or to a committee.

[Timothy]

Rather than trying to create co-presidents, it would be better to look at the responsibilities the president has and what can be done to hand those responsibilities off to other people, such as the vice-president, the secretary, a committee, or whatever. Any responsibilities other than presiding at meetings can be removed from the president's shoulders and placed on someone else.

[g40]

Depending on the nature of the organization, duties involved, etc., what often works for such organizations is delegation of some duties to the Vice-President. That accomplishes your challenge of too many responsibilities falling fully on the President. Having a First and Second Vive President might also assist in such splitting of duties.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Darn, I thought I was going to win this one.  Especially with the opening part about how it's fine for a complete ignoramus to waltz into a meeting and figure he can preside competently; and that Gen. Robert says that's a fine idea on p. xl (pronounced "sleepy" in English).

[Rev Ed]

So you think it will be easier to get two presidents?

 

I have the same concern.  If you can't get one person to do the job, you'll have a harder time to get two people to do the job.

 

My suggestion would not be to change the By-laws to have co-Presidents, but rather change the By-laws to transfer some of the administrative duties to others.  For example, according to RONR, the President need only chair Board and general membership meetings.  Even if the President is an ex-officio member of Committees, the President need not actually show up.  The President can still create a proposed Agenda for Board meetings, but the Secretary can also do this.  A Vice President could be put in charge of being a spokesman for the organization.

[Edgar Guest]

For example, according to RONR, the President need only chair Board and general membership meetings.

I must have missed the part where the president of the organization must also be the chair of the board.

 

The President can still create a proposed Agenda for Board meetings, but the Secretary can also do this.

Well, anyone can create a proposed agenda (thought there's no need for an agenda at all).

[Rev Ed]

I must have missed the part where the president of the organization must also be the chair of the board.

 

Why do I both - that is assuming that there is not a separate position of Chairman, but unless there is then the President would likely act as Chairman.

 

Well, anyone can create a proposed agenda (thought there's no need for an agenda at all).

 

True.  But my point is that the position does not have to be made onerous.  The work can be shared out amongst members if required.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I must have missed the part where the president of the organization must also be the chair of the board.

Page 484, lines 22–26

[jstackpo]

In support of Edgar's overlooking "that part":  p. 484, lines 22-26 of RONR/11 struck out "it is customary for" following "on the other hand," which introduced the "must" aspect of what is now a rule.  The text was previously only an observation of a custom, documented in RONR/10.

[Edgar Guest]

I must have missed the part where the president of the organization must also be the chair of the board.

 

Page 484, lines 22–26

 

In support of Edgar's overlooking "that part":  p. 484, lines 22-26 of RONR/11 struck out "it is customary for" following "on the other hand," which introduced the "must" aspect of what is now a rule.  The text was previously only an observation of a custom, documented in RONR/10.

 

Thanks to Mssrs. Messrs.Gerber and Stackpole (and apologies to Rev Ed).

[Rev Ed]

Thanks to Mssrs. Gerber and Stackpole (and apologies to Rev Ed).

 

Don't worry, some on this forum may tell you that they can count on one hand how many times I have been right.  And, it is always possible for the organization to have a separate position of Chairman anyway.