Guest loreen Posted January 26, 2015 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 08:41 PM When bylaws give no direction and two people share a position on the board of directors (co- secretary) especially elected positions, who can vote and how is a quorum counted? please refer to RR page # if you can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 26, 2015 at 08:53 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 08:53 PM Keep checking back for a whole lot of reasons why RONR and most of us who are regulars on the forum frown on co-anythings!! Edited to add: Since this is your organization's unique rule, it will be up to your organization to interpret how to implement it. But, barring something different in your bylaws or special rules, RONR adheres steadfastly to the "one person, one vote" philosophy. Every member, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, is entitled to vote, attend meetings, speak in debate, etc. If you want to treat each of these two people as "half a person", you will have to sort that out yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:04 PM When bylaws give no direction . . . Then two people can't share a position. Do your bylaws refer to "co-secretaries" or, like almost all bylaws, do they just refer to "a secretary" or "the secretary"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:14 PM Guest Loreen, you might find this thread helpful about co-presidents, co-chairmen, and co-anything. Pay particular attention to post # 4 by JDStackpole in that thread and click on the link he provides and read the article about the problems with co-anything. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/23975-co-chair-positions/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest loreen Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:16 PM our parent organization is permitting creative organization in order to keep branches able to find leadership. many have chosen to share positions and allow "co" positions in their bylaws but now that poses a problem of quorum and voting rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:42 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 09:42 PM Hasn't Dr. Stackpole recently posted the key objections to co-anythings from his article in the Parliamentary Journal that I referred to above? I feel certain I have seen him post the key points from the article recently, but I can't find one now. Edited to add: Guest Loreen, you might also find this thread about co-chairs enlightening: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/22724-co-chairs/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted January 26, 2015 at 10:15 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 10:15 PM our parent organization is permitting creative organization in order to keep branches able to find leadership. many have chosen to share positions and allow "co" positions in their bylaws but now that poses a problem of quorum and voting rights Better probably to do that with vice-"position" or assistant "whatever" rather than co-"anything". You could save yourselves some headaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted January 26, 2015 at 10:21 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 10:21 PM our parent organization is permitting creative organization . . . This is what happens when you're allowed to color outside the lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 26, 2015 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted January 26, 2015 at 11:47 PM When bylaws give no direction and two people share a position on the board of directors (co- secretary) especially elected positions, who can vote and how is a quorum counted? please refer to RR page # if you canIt's one person = one member = one vote, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, regardless of how many positions the member holds (or shares). As others have noted, there are many problems with attempting to have two people share an office, but this issue is actually quite straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted January 27, 2015 at 01:37 AM Report Share Posted January 27, 2015 at 01:37 AM In addition, the reference in RONR to "one person, one vote" is on page 407. Also, page 176 mentions "impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:08 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:08 PM When bylaws give no direction and two people share a position on the board of directors (co- secretary) especially elected positions, who can vote and how is a quorum counted? please refer to RR page # if you canIf the bylaws give no direction on the subject, then two people cannot share a position, especially an elected position. Whatever action got you into this mess is null and void, so you don't actually have two people sharing a position, even if you think you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:10 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 02:10 PM our parent organization is permitting creative organization in order to keep branches able to find leadership. many have chosen to share positions and allow "co" positions in their bylaws but now that poses a problem of quorum and voting rights But apparently yours is no one of the many who have amended their bylaws, is that right? You are correct that it poses a problem of quorum and voting rights, and those are two of the reasons that RONR prohibits the practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 28, 2015 at 07:42 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 07:42 PM You are correct that it poses a problem of quorum and voting rights, and those are two of the reasons that RONR prohibits the practice.No, it does not pose a problem and they are not part of the reasons RONR prohibits the practice, at least to the best of my knowledge. RONR is quite clear that it's one person = one member = one vote, regardless of how many positions a member holds. If the bylaws authorize two or more people to share an office, the fact remains that each of them is counted as one member and has one vote, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. It's no different than one person holding two offices.There are many problems with having two or more people attempt to share the duties of a single position, but these are not among them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted January 28, 2015 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 07:51 PM No, it does not pose a problem and they are not part of the reasons RONR prohibits the practice, at least to the best of my knowledge. RONR is quite clear that it's one person = one member = one vote, regardless of how many positions a member holds. If the bylaws authorize two or more people to share an office, the fact remains that each of them is counted as one member and has one vote, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. It's no different than one person holding two offices.There are many problems with having two or more people attempt to share the duties of a single position, but these are not among them.Well, these seem to be among the problems that this organization is having with it. I do agree that RONR is pretty explicit about the one person = one member = one vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 28, 2015 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted January 28, 2015 at 07:54 PM Well, these seem to be among the problems that this organization is having with it. Only because no one had, until a few days ago, informed them of the rule in RONR on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:39 PM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:39 PM No, it does not pose a problem and they are not part of the reasons RONR prohibits the practice, at least to the best of my knowledge. RONR is quite clear that it's one person = one member = one vote, regardless of how many positions a member holds. If the bylaws authorize two or more people to share an office, the fact remains that each of them is counted as one member and has one vote, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. It's no different than one person holding two offices.There are many problems with having two or more people attempt to share the duties of a single position, but these are not among them. I agree that it's one person one vote regardless of how many positions a member holds, even if that number were (somehow) one-half. But RONR is also quite clear that while one person may hold two positions, two persons may not hold one position. An exception exists if the bylaws specify it, but where the practice is authorized, the bylaws usually also answer the questions on quorum and voting rights. If the bylaws do so, such answers supersede RONR; if they fail to do so, I agree with your interpretation of the RONR defaults. But the situation here (and I would suspect the most common scenario among organizations with co-officers) is that none of these questions have been asked or answered, including how co-officers got authorized in the first place. They just go ahead and elect them and the questions arise later. Then, when they check the bylaws to find out, they find nothing at all. in that case the co-officers simply don't exist, and any questions on quorum requirements and voting rights of co-officers become strictly hypothetical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:43 PM Report Share Posted January 29, 2015 at 07:43 PM An exception exists if the bylaws specify it, but where the practice is authorized, the bylaws usually also answer the questions on quorum and voting rights.I'm not so sure about that. In my experience, most organizations just toss the term "co-chair" into their bylaws without any thought or explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.