What is the best way to handle standing committee transition?

[Guest Outgoing_Chairman]

A standing committee has five members elected annually and three ex officio members. Traditionally, the committee is responsible for choosing its own chairman. The committee meets at the call of the chairman. To ensure a smooth transition when the annual election occurs, what should be done prior to the election and following the election? By whom?

[jstackpo]

Perhaps name one of the committee positions as chairman prior to the election. Then that person will have the responsibility to call the first meeting (or if he/she fails to do so any two of the members can). p. 499.

Or just don't specify the chair in the election, and let the two-member rule kick in.

[Edgar Guest]

Perhaps name one of the committee positions as chairman prior to the election.

 

Are you suggesting that the general membership could, in effect, elect a committee chairman when it elects members to the committee?

 

Or are you suggesting that the committee elect a chairman prior to the general election (and hope he gets re-elected)?

[jstackpo]

The former.

Since, according to the OP, it is merely a "tradition" that the committee elects its own chairman, the association is free to change the tradition at will.

[Guest Outgoing_Chairman]

How would the association do that? There is nothing in the bylaws about a chairman, only that the committee is made up of five members and the ex officio members. Would the association elect five and then choose one of the eight to be chairman, or would it elect the chairman as a distinct position and elect four for the other committee positions?

 

And what if the association prefers to allow the committee to decide?

[Rev Ed]

How would the association do that? There is nothing in the bylaws about a chairman, only that the committee is made up of five members and the ex officio members. Would the association elect five and then choose one of the eight to be chairman, or would it elect the chairman as a distinct position and elect four for the other committee positions?

 

The organization can do either option.  It might help to elect the Chairman and then four members, but with three ex-officio members, it would likely be easier to elect the five members and then elect the Chairman from the eight members.

 

And what if the association prefers to allow the committee to decide?

 

The organization is free to decide this.  However, someone (i.e. the Chairman at the member where you are electing the members of the Committee) should point out that the two members can call the first meeting, although the Committee members present at the meeting may wish to get together after the meeting to trade contact information and agree on a time and place for their first meeting.

[jstackpo]

[quote name="Outgoing_Chairman" post="124490" timestamp="1407778633"

And what if the association prefers to allow the committee to decide?

[Timothy]

Not to say that there shouldn't be one, but I've found that the two person rule tends to cause committees to delay calling the first meeting because no one person has an action item. I would suggest that someone with the appearance of authority tell the first on the list that they must call a meeting, so it gets done.

[jstackpo]

Not to say that there shouldn't be one, but I've found that the two person rule tends to cause committees to delay calling the first meeting because no one person has an action item. I would suggest that someone with the appearance of authority tell the first on the list that they must call a meeting, so it gets done.

If the committee has no business to consider, there seems little point in calling a meeting just to elect a chair.

[Timothy]

If the committee has no business to consider, there seems little point in calling a meeting just to elect a chair.

 

If a committee has no business to consider, there seems little point in having a committee.

 

My experience with standing committees has been that they may have a report that is due at the same time each year. They may go weeks or months without needing to meet, but maybe three months before their report is due, they need to start working on it. Newly elected committee members are willing to do the work, but they tend to wait for someone to tell them what needs to be done. Without a chairman who knows it is his responsibility to identify the business they need to address and to call meetings, the committee tends to go well past the time they need to start meeting before someone asks the question, "who's supposed to call a meeting?"

[jstackpo]

Agreed, but "no business to consider" is not equal to "have a report that is due".