Selection of committee chairman

[Guest Guest]

Who selects the committee chairman?  Can the board president select the committee chairman?

 

[Richard Brown]

A committee chairman can be selected in a variety of ways.  There is no single answer.

 

1.  The bylaws quite likely dictate how certain committees and their chairmen will be selected, especially for standing committees.  See what your bylaws say about committees and the power of the president.

2.  The power to create or appoint a committee carries with it the power to appoint the chairman

3.  The motion creating the committee can specify how the members and/or the chairman will be selected.  If the president is given the power to appoint the members, he also has the power to name the chairman unless the motion creating the committee or some rule provides otherwise.

4.  If the rule or motion creating a committee or naming the members of a committee does not specify the chairman, the committee members themselves select their own chairman from among its members.

[Guest Guest]

Dear Mr. Brown,

Thank you so much for responding to my question.  I forgot to mention our By-Laws does not indicate how a chairman is selected.

 

When I was searching for an answer to my question, I found ARTICLE IX. COMMITTEES AND BOARDS. 52.  Committees, Special and Standing:

 

"Unless the assembly has appointed a chairman, either directly or through its presiding officer, the first named on a committee, and in his absence the next named member, becomes chairman and so on and should act as such unless the committee by a majority of its number elects a chairman, which it has the right to do if the assembly has not appointed one, and which a standing committee usually does."

 

Can you explain this to me?  Or is it even applicable to my question?

 

Thank you for your time.

[Richard Brown]

Dear Mr. Brown,

Thank you so much for responding to my question.  I forgot to mention our By-Laws does not indicate how a chairman is selected.

 

When I was searching for an answer to my question, I found ARTICLE IX. COMMITTEES AND BOARDS. 52.  Committees, Special and Standing:

 

"Unless the assembly has appointed a chairman, either directly or through its presiding officer, the first named on a committee, and in his absence the next named member, becomes chairman and so on and should act as such unless the committee by a majority of its number elects a chairman, which it has the right to do if the assembly has not appointed one, and which a standing committee usually does."

 

Can you explain this to me?  Or is it even applicable to my question?

 

Thank you for your time.

 

You are quoting from an online version of Robert's Rules, which is the 1915 4th edition.... almost 100 years and 7 editions out of date.   We are now in the 2011 11th edition.  Get yourself "The Right Book", which is 716 pages and has provisions regarding committees and selection/appointment of committee chairmen scattered throughout the book.  http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

 

That provision is partially true, but has been at least partially superseded by more recent editions.  If the president or the bylaws or the body or the motion creating the committee names a chairman, the committee cannot elect its own chairman.  It is not unusual, for example, for the bylaws to specify that a certain officer, such as the vice-president, shall be the chairman of a certain committee.

[Josh Martin]

Thank you so much for responding to my question.  I forgot to mention our By-Laws does not indicate how a chairman is selected.

 

If your bylaws are silent on appointing committee members, then committee members (including the chairman) are appointed by the assembly, unless the assembly authorizes the chair to appoint them.

 

"Unless the assembly has appointed a chairman, either directly or through its presiding officer, the first named on a committee, and in his absence the next named member, becomes chairman and so on and should act as such unless the committee by a majority of its number elects a chairman, which it has the right to do if the assembly has not appointed one, and which a standing committee usually does."

 

Can you explain this to me?  Or is it even applicable to my question?

 

The rules have changed on this subject a bit. If the chair appoints the committee, the first-named member of the committee is the committee chairman, even if the chair neglects to specify this. If the committee is appointed in some other manner (such as by the assembly), then the situation is as described in that quote. If the assembly neglects to specify a chairman when appointing the committee, the first-named member temporarily serves as chairman until the committee elects a chairman.

[Patsy]

Dear Mr. Martin,

Your explanation makes sense.  I already have the Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief and yesterday ordered the 11th Edition.

 

With your explanation I think I'm going to recommend to the board that we amend the Committee Charters to specify the procedure for the selection of committee chairs.  This will be easier than amending our governing documents.  What do you think?

 

Thank you so much!

[Bruce Lages]

I'm not Mr. Martin, but I think it's not necessary to amend your Committee Charters (whatever they are) unless you want to be locked into a specific procedure for selecting your committee chairs. As the above responses should make clear, RONR offers several different ways to select committee chairs, and you may just want the flexibility to use the method you feel best suits a given situation, rather than only having one method available.

[Richard Brown]

I'm not Mr. Martin, but I think it's not necessary to amend your Committee Charters (whatever they are) unless you want to be locked into a specific procedure for selecting your committee chairs. As the above responses should make clear, RONR offers several different ways to select committee chairs, and you may just want the flexibility to use the method you feel best suits a given situation, rather than only having one method available.

 

I agree with the suggestion by Mr. Lages.  I don't see a need to amend your bylaws unless you want to lock the organization into not having any flexibility when it comes to selecting committee chairs.  Instead of amending your bylaws, the assembly itself can name the committee chairs or, in appropriate cases, leave it to the discretion of the president to make some appointments.  As Mr. Martin said, if your bylaws are silent on the method of selecting committee chairs, then the assembly itself can either make the appointments or authorize the president to make them on a case by case basis.

 

Keep in mind that once your bylaws specify a method of designating or selecting the committee chairs, you have no authority to deviate from that. 

[Patsy]

Dear Mr. Brown & Mr. Lages,

 

The Committee Charters (board approval) can easily be amended compared to By-Laws (requires a quorum).  See if I understand :

 

1.  Assembly (board of directors) can appoint committee chairs

2.  President also can appoint committee chairs

3.  If the assembly neglects to appoint the committee chair then the first named member is automatically chair

 

This is what exactly happened,  the assembly didn't select a chair for a "specific" committee and I made the first named member the chair of this committee.  I am one of the board liaisons to this committee.  At the first meeting should we vote to make the temporary chair permanent?

 

Thank you both for being patient with me and explaining it to me where I can understand.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The original poster may not know how to create a rule which will address the issue without amending one's bylaws.

 

It is permissible for your new "chairman assignment method" rule be drafted and adopted as its own indepenent rule.

Such a rule would be a "special rule of order."

A special rule of order is a customized rule of order which supplements the default parliamentary rules of the adopted parliamentary authority (Robert's Rules of Order, we hope).

So, if you do want your president to "do it" in a certain way (and still have the rule subject to being suspended, for an even-more customized solution for those exceptional cases), then a "special rule of order" should do the trick nicely.

[Richard Brown]

Dear Mr. Brown & Mr. Lages,

 

The Committee Charters (board approval) can easily be amended compared to By-Laws (requires a quorum).  See if I understand :

 

1.  Assembly (board of directors) can appoint committee chairs

2.  President also can appoint committee chairs

3.  If the assembly neglects to appoint the committee chair then the first named member is automatically chair

 

This is what exactly happened,  the assembly didn't select a chair for a "specific" committee and I made the first named member the chair of this committee.  I am one of the board liaisons to this committee.  At the first meeting should we vote to make the temporary chair permanent?

 

Thank you both for being patient with me and explaining it to me where I can understand.

 

Here is the exact wording from the 11th edition of RONR re the naming of committee members by the assembly.  This provision applies only when the assembly names the members, not when the president does so.  This should answer your question which I highlighted and underlined in your quote above:

RONR, page 176:

"If the committee is named by a power other than the chair (such as the assembly or the executive board), the body that elects the committee members has the power, at the time the appointments are made, to designate any one of them as chairman. If a chairman is not designated when the committee is appointed, the committee has the right to elect its own chairman. In the latter case, the first-named member has the duty of calling the committee together and of acting as temporary chairman until the committee elects a chairman. Since such a committee may confirm its first-named member in the chairmanship, it is important that this person be qualified and dependable."

 

Edited to add:  I agree with Mr. Goldworthy's statement that you can establish a method of selecting committee chairmen by adopting a special rule of order rather than amending your bylaws. 

[Edgar Guest]

The Committee Charters (board approval) can easily be amended compared to By-Laws (requires a quorum). 

 

Pretty much everything requires a quorum.

[Patsy]

Mr. Edgar Guest,

 

Yes, a quorum is required but the Committee Charter needs only board members quorum which is a lot easier than the necessary quorum to amend the By-Laws.

 

Thank you for your response.

[Patsy]

Mr. Brown,

Thank you for the RONR pg.176.  That helped me a lot!  I'm sorry but I just didn't understand what is the Special Rule of Order- clueless.

 

I'm glad I've ordered the Robert's Rule of Order 11th Edition and now with your explanation this makes more sense.

 

Thank you again for your patience and explaining it as simply as possible for me.

[Richard Brown]

  I'm sorry but I just didn't understand what is the Special Rule of Order- clueless.

 

Special rules of order are rules of order that your organization can adopt that modify the rules in your parliamentary authority (presumably RONR) and customize them to your needs.  They supersede what is in your parliamentary authority. 

 

For example, RONR provides that each member can speak in debate on a motion two times for up to ten minutes each time....that's a total of twenty minutes for one person to speak on one motion.  Some organizations adopt a special rule of order that changes that time limit to something shorter.  You could adopt a special rule of order that specifies how committee chairs shall be selected.

 

Adopting special rules of order is easier and less drastic than amending the bylaws.  They can also be suspended by a two-thirds vote.   Amending them is also easier than amending the bylaws.

[Patsy]

Mr. Brown,

I found Special Rule of Order on page 86 in the Robert's Rule of Order Newly Revised in Brief.  What is the quorum requirement to approve this? 

 

Thanks again

[Edgar Guest]

What is the quorum requirement to approve this? 

 

You may be confusing the quorum requirement (the number of members who must be present) with the voting requirement.

 

Once you've got enough members present to satisfy the quorum requirement you can pretty much forget about it (unless a lot of members leave the meeting room!).

[Richard Brown]

Mr. Brown,

I found Special Rule of Order on page 86 in the Robert's Rule of Order Newly Revised in Brief.  What is the quorum requirement to approve this? 

 

I think you are confusing the quorum requirement with the vote required to adopt something.  The quorum requirement is the number of members who must be present in order to take action, regardless of whether they actually vote on a particular motion.  The vote requirement is independent of the quorum requirement and is the number (or percentage) of votes needed to adopt something, assuming a quorum is present. 

 

The vote requirement to adopt or amend special rules of order is previous notice and a two-thirds vote (of those present and voting) or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.  RONR 11th ed, page 17.

[Patsy]

Mr. Brown,

Thank you for clarifying the difference between quorum and vote.  Yes, we have to have quorum to have a board meeting.  We have to a majority vote to adopt something. 

 

Thank you again for explaining simply for me!

[Edgar Guest]

Yes, we have to have quorum to have a board meeting.

 

Well, no, you don't.

[Patsy]

Thank you all for contributing to my question!    Also thank you for being so patient and professional in your responses.

I now have a better understanding about the selection of a committee chairman.

 

Much appreciation