Quorum

[Guest Bill S]

Our pastor is an ex-officio member of all church committees. Does his presence count towards having a quorom present in these committees? Thank you.

[Chris Harrison]

Maybe. See RONR pp. 483-484.

[Dan Honemann]

Our pastor is an ex-officio member of all church committees. Does his presence count towards having a quorom present in these committees? Thank you.

 

I think not. See RONR, 11th ed., page 497, lines 22-29.

[Edgar Guest]

Maybe. See RONR pp. 483-484.

 

I think not. See RONR, 11th ed., page 497, lines 22-29.

 

I'm not sure the pastor of a church (an employee?) is comparable to (analogous with?) the president of a society (an officer).

[Tom Coronite]

I'm not sure the pastor of a church (an employee?) is comparable to (analogous with?) the president of a society (an officer).

 

 

I know of at least one church where it sure isn't!

 

So, in such a case, p 497 ll 22-29 would not apply anymore than they would to a treasurer or secretary who is an ex-officio memmber of all committees per the bylaws, correct? IOW, that provision applies specifically and exclusively to the president, yes?

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Honemann.  In some churches, especially Presbyterian churches, the pastor is also the "Moderator" and presides over the general assembly.  In that case, I believe that would be comparable to a president or chairman and he would not count for quorum purposes in committees.   We don't know if that's the case here, but I believe the situation is still comparable and he would not be counted for quorum purposes.  I believe he has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in committee proceedings.

[Edgar Guest]

We don't know if that's the case here . . . 

 

No, we don't.

[Tom Coronite]

 In some churches, especially Presbyterian churches, the pastor is also the "Moderator" and presides over the general assembly.  In that case, I believe that would be comparable to a president or chairman and he would not count for quorum purposes in committees.   We don't know if that's the case here, but I believe the situation is still comparable and he would not be counted for quorum purposes.  I believe he has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in committee proceedings.

 

 

Fair enough.  But some churches are not all churches, and as a pastor in a congregational church I can tell you I am not president/moderator/grand poobah of the congregation.  So my question remains: does the passage cited exclusively apply to a president?  if it does, doesn't the answer to the original question depend on the role?  I am an ex-officio member of all church committees and I am expected to participate.  Seems that if there are situations where pastor does not equal president we cannot simply say across the board that p 497 applies across the board.

 

I apologize if this borders on turning this into a church question, but I definitely have a RONR question here, as I have always thought I did count towards the quorum and am interested to know if this is incorrect.

 

Am I actually to infer that when RONR references "president" what it says applies to pastor, even if that pastor does not serve a role similar to president? Even if there is also a president/moderator?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

Am I actually to infer that when RONR references "president" what it says applies to pastor, even if that pastor does not serve a role similar to president?

Even if there is also a president/moderator?

Unknown.

 

Example:

In a yacht club, their highest ranking officer is "Commodore". (I am not making this up.)

So I ask you the same question.

Does the cited rule in RONR apply to the Commodore of the yacht club?

 

There is no way to tell, from the outside in.

 

Someone must read the bylaws and make a interpretation -- whether there is a correspondence between RONR's "president" and the organization's "commodore" (or Grand Nagus, or Grand Poo-Bah, or Chief Cook and Bottle Washer.)

 

We cannot tell you if there is a match, or not.

We have not read the bylaws.

[Tom Coronite]

I'm on board with that, Kim.  It depends.

[Timothy]

I imagine that the reason RONR says what it does about the president is because the president is often placed on all committees out of respect rather than an actual need for him to be there. The same could be said of the pastor of a church, whether he is the moderator or not. In some churches, the pastor is pretty much king, so it is really up to him to decide, but in other churches, it may be more the authority of the church to decide. While what RONR says might serve as a guide on the subject, I think it would be better for a specific decision to be made within the framework of how the particular organization operates.

[Josh Martin]

Fair enough.  But some churches are not all churches, and as a pastor in a congregational church I can tell you I am not president/moderator/grand poobah of the congregation.  So my question remains: does the passage cited exclusively apply to a president?  if it does, doesn't the answer to the original question depend on the role?  I am an ex-officio member of all church committees and I am expected to participate.  Seems that if there are situations where pastor does not equal president we cannot simply say across the board that p 497 applies across the board.

 

I apologize if this borders on turning this into a church question, but I definitely have a RONR question here, as I have always thought I did count towards the quorum and am interested to know if this is incorrect.

 

Am I actually to infer that when RONR references "president" what it says applies to pastor, even if that pastor does not serve a role similar to president? Even if there is also a president/moderator?

 

"When the bylaws provide that the president shall be ex officio a member of all committees (or of all committees with the stated exception of those from which the president is best excluded; see pp. 579–80), the president is an ex-officio member who has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committees, and he is not counted in determining the number required for a quorum or whether a quorum is present at a meeting." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 497)

 

It seems to me that "president" is used here simply because that is the officer who is most frequently the subject of such a rule. I believe the key is not so much the nature of the officer, but whether the individual has the obligation to attend committee meetings. The general presumption is that someone who is an ex-officio member of all committees does not have such an obligation, but this would seem not to be the case in your organization.

[Timothy]

"When the bylaws provide that the president shall be ex officio a member of all committees (or of all committees with the stated exception of those from which the president is best excluded; see pp. 579–80), the president is an ex-officio member who has the right, but not the obligation, to participate in the proceedings of the committees, and he is not counted in determining the number required for a quorum or whether a quorum is present at a meeting." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 497)

 

It seems to me that "president" is used here simply because that is the officer who is most frequently the subject of such a rule. I believe the key is not so much the nature of the officer, but whether the individual has the obligation to attend committee meetings. The general presumption is that someone who is an ex-officio member of all committees does not have such an obligation, but this would seem not to be the case in your organization.

 

You may be correct (and I hope you are), but it isn't clear from the wording that this is an example that would apply to all ex officio members who are placed on all committees.

[Tom Coronite]

Is it possible to overthink this (p 497 lines 22-29)?  could it be simply that this rule applies to the president, and it's up to each society to determine if their pastor/commodore/moderator/poobah/etc is the equivalent of president?

[Richard Brown]

It seems to me that "president" is used here simply because that is the officer who is most frequently the subject of such a rule. I believe the key is not so much the nature of the officer, but whether the individual has the obligation to attend committee meetings. The general presumption is that someone who is an ex-officio member of all committees does not have such an obligation, but this would seem not to be the case in your organization.

 

 

Is it possible to overthink this (p 497 lines 22-29)?  could it be simply that this rule applies to the president, and it's up to each society to determine if their pastor/commodore/moderator/poobah/etc is the equivalent of president?

 

I think reasonable arguments can be made for both interpretations.  I personally agree with Josh's opinion that the word "president" is used in the quoted rule as an example and because it most often applies to the president. However, I don't believe it is limited to the president.  That was part of the rationale I used in coming to my own conclusion earlier that in the situation we are discussing here, the pastor should not be counted for quorum purposes.   

 

Maybe that provision can be tweaked in the 12 edition to make it a little clearer  (Although I believe Mr. Honemann has made his interpretation clear, that interpretation was expressed only here and not in the book). 

 

Note:  I am putting special emphasis on the words in lines 24 - 29 on page 579 which read as follows: 

"This section may also provide that certain officers—for example, the president—"shall be ex officio a member of all committees except the Nominating Committee." In that case, the president has the right, but not the duty, of participating in the work of the committees (see also pp. 483–84, 497). Without such a provision, he has no vote within the committees, nor can he attend their meetings except as invited by a particular committee".  (Emphasis mine).

 

To  me, that language makes pretty plain that "the president" is being used as an example and that the provision is not limited to the president.

[Timothy]

I agree that the wording on page 579 is that of an example. The wording on page 479 is not so clear. Even so, I lean toward saying that if the pastor in question should not be included in the quorum calculations. I can think of situations, however, in which an ex officio member is desired to have an obligation to participate in all committee meetings (the treasurer, for example) while others might be ex officio members with the intent that they can participate if they so desire. It seems likely that careful attention to wording is needed to distinguish the two.

[Josh Martin]

Is it possible to overthink this (p 497 lines 22-29)?

 

Yes.

 

could it be simply that this rule applies to the president, and it's up to each society to determine if their pastor/commodore/moderator/poobah/etc is the equivalent of president?

 

It could be, although I personally believe that the issue is not whether the office is the equivalent of a President, but whether the officer is expected to attend the meetings of the many committees he is an ex-officio member of. This is, of course, up to the organization to determine.

 

I don't really see how whether the officer is or is not the presiding officer of the organization makes any difference regarding whether he should be counted in the quorum of a committee. The real issue is whether the ex-officio member is expected to attend. If the member is expected to attend meetings of the committees, then he should be counted in the quorum, and this is the case for most ex-officio members.

 

RONR provides two situations where an ex-officio member is not counted in the quorum. One involves an officer (the text mentions the President) serving on all committees in an organization (often with certain exceptions). Generally speaking, a society does not expect someone to attend the meetings of every committee in the organization, although it is conceivable that a society may have such an expectation in a particular case. The other example is when someone not under the authority of the society is made an ex-officio member, and the example given is when the Governor of a state is made an ex-officio member of a board. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 483) The society likely does not expect the Governor to attend the meetings of the board very often (if ever).

 

The common thread in these situations seems to be that the ex-officio member has the right, but not the obligation, to attend meetings of the committee or board of which he is a member.