Out Dated Standing Rules - PTA

[Guest Anonymous]

Hello Everyone,

I have been involved with my school's PTA for many years. This year, we have a new president and in taking over, realized a) that we had Standing Rules and b) that they were 10 years out of date. In taking over as president, she has insisted that we have to abide by the 10 year old Standing Rules until we can amend them and approve a new set of Standing Rules.

Here's my concern. For the past 8 years that I have been involved, we have had approximately 7 officers and about 20 standing committee chairs. Each standing committee chair reports to an officer and both officers and standing committee chairs are on our executive board. The 10 year old Standing Rules that she has now regressed back to list the 7 officers and about 14 Standing Committee Chairs. Of the 14 standing committee chairs, only 2 of those committees still exist- most refer to programs that no longer exist at our school. So, standing committee chairs that have been on our board for years are now no longer on the board and she is appointing people to non-existent (no longer pertinent) positions.

Last year we added a Standing Committee Chair position. It was proposed by the president and the board voted to approve it. There are minutes to reflect this. However, because the Standing Rules were not updated when this happened, she is saying this position does not actually exist. I am so confused. If our executive board voted to add a position to the board, we have minutes that reflect that, doesn't that have precedence over an outdated Standing Rules document?  

Unfortunately, this has created a lot of frustration for many board members who now find themselves off the board after spending many years invested.

Any help or insight is gladly appreciated.

Thank you!

[Joshua Katz]

8 minutes ago, Guest Anonymous said:

Here's my concern. For the past 8 years that I have been involved, we have had approximately 7 officers and about 20 standing committee chairs. Each standing committee chair reports to an officer and both officers and standing committee chairs are on our executive board. The 10 year old Standing Rules that she has now regressed back to list the 7 officers and about 14 Standing Committee Chairs. Of the 14 standing committee chairs, only 2 of those committees still exist- most refer to programs that no longer exist at our school. So, standing committee chairs that have been on our board for years are now no longer on the board and she is appointing people to non-existent (no longer pertinent) positions.

 

How did that happen? More specifically, who adopted the Standing Rules? If the assembly, then the board has been misbehaving in making decisions contrary to those rules, since they have application outside the meeting context and may not be suspended. If the board, the board can amend them. The below assumes the board adopted them.

10 minutes ago, Guest Anonymous said:

 Last year we added a Standing Committee Chair position. It was proposed by the president and the board voted to approve it. There are minutes to reflect this. However, because the Standing Rules were not updated when this happened, she is saying this position does not actually exist. I am so confused. If our executive board voted to add a position to the board, we have minutes that reflect that, doesn't that have precedence over an outdated Standing Rules document?  

 

Any motion with continuing effect is, in essence, a standing rule. If an organization compiles standing rules, it should do so by listing all such motions. They should be removed or amended by the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted - which is the appropriate motion even if the organization does not create a document listing its standing rules. In this case, it sounds like that was not done; rather, an original main motion was adopted which contradicted the existing standing rules. I suppose my thought is that the motion should be understood as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, and, although no effort was made to verify that the vote threshold was met, the chair declared it adopted and there was no point of order, so the standing rule should be the new motion. In the future, though, your organization should use the correct motions to modify its standing rules.

Some will argue, I expect, that no motion is in order which contradicts a rule, so the adopted motions are null and void, and the organization should now consider all of them as properly-phrased motions. I have sympathy with this position, but I also have sympathy with the struggle the organization would have in implementing it.

[Guest Anonymous]

19 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

33 minutes ago, Guest Anonymous said:

 

How did that happen? More specifically, who adopted the Standing Rules? If the assembly, then the board has been misbehaving in making decisions contrary to those rules, since they have application outside the meeting context and may not be suspended. If the board, the board can amend them. The below assumes the board adopted them.

I believe when our PTA was formed about 10 years ago, they created the Standing Rules document and adopted them at that time. That (10 year old) document is literally a list of officers and Standing Committee Chairs with a description of each position - there are no other rules listed. Over the years, this document was lost (but apparently filed with the State PTA). There was not printed copy of the document in any PTA folders and so as the years passed no board members knew of it's existence. As programs changed at our school, the Standing Committees changed. Each time, a vote was put forth in front of the board to add or replace an existing position. These positions were added to a document listing officer and board members and was updated from year to year and put into the PTA folders.

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, Guest Anonymous said:

I believe when our PTA was formed about 10 years ago, they created the Standing Rules document and adopted them at that time.

Who is "they?" If the membership, then I would say you need to follow the Standing Rules as written, and ask the membership to amend them if they aren't working for you. Each time your board decided that it didn't like what the membership said, and adopted a motion to do something different, it was violating the rules and its actions were of no effect. The presence or absence of printed copies doesn't change that, nor does printing out materials detailing the ways in which the board chose to deviate from the rules adopted by the assembly. The membership is in charge, and the board has only the powers given to it.

That said, I'm not so sure we're even talking about standing rules, in the RONR sense. If the documents lists officers, it is probably a set of bylaws in parliamentary terminology. Certainly your board may not deviate from those.

Where standing committees are listed in the bylaws, no other standing committees may be created, except by amending the bylaws. It sounds like your board has even been tinkering with its own membership in violation of the bylaws! In government, such an action is called a "coup." In ordinary organizations, it is called "violating the bylaws." It has no effect.

Finally, your President is wrong in that she said too little. The problem is not that the document was not updated, but that your board has no power to change it. 

[Guest Anonymous]

33 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I suppose my thought is that the motion should be understood as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, and, although no effort was made to verify that the vote threshold was met, the chair declared it adopted and there was no point of order, so the standing rule should be the new motion.

So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying an approved motion to add or remove a position should be understood as an amendment to the Standing Rules. Regarding vote threshold, all decisions to add or remove positions to the board were made via a motion to the entire executive board. We met quorum and as long as I can remember there were no dissenting votes. Motions to add or remove positions were declared adopted and so inherently would become new standing rules.

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Guest Anonymous said:

So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying an approved motion to add or remove a position should be understood as an amendment to the Standing Rules. Regarding vote threshold, all decisions to add or remove positions to the board were made via a motion to the entire executive board. We met quorum and as long as I can remember there were no dissenting votes. Motions to add or remove positions were declared adopted and so inherently would become new standing rules.

As I said in my previous replies, it depends where the Standing Rules came from - just above what you are quoting, you'll find my note that it applies only if they were adopted by the board in the first place. Later posts have called that into doubt, and have even called into doubt if these are actually standing rules, in RONR terminology, rather than bylaws.

But, in the event that they are standing rules adopted by the board, the correct way to amend them is by using the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted. This is harder to adopt than an original main motion - it requires a 2/3 vote, a majority vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership (of the board, in this case) voting in favor. That's what I meant by voting threshold. In the future, that would be the correct process (if, again, these are standing rules adopted by the board). The question is the remedial one, where you've passed dozens as if they were original main motions. On that, I take the position that they can be treated as amendments which were stated improperly, and perhaps adopted by an improper threshold, with the facts now lost to the sands of time. It doesn't mean you should continue to treat them as such moving forward, though.

But, as I said, later posts have called this into doubt for me. It now seems likely that all the board actions discussed were improper, and null and void.

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Guest Anonymous said:

In taking over as president, she has insisted that we have to abide by the 10 year old Standing Rules until we can amend them and approve a new set of Standing Rules.

This is correct, although it is possible that the organization has amended the standing rules in the past ten years, even although this was not explicitly stated.

4 hours ago, Guest Anonymous said:

The 10 year old Standing Rules that she has now regressed back to list the 7 officers and about 14 Standing Committee Chairs. Of the 14 standing committee chairs, only 2 of those committees still exist- most refer to programs that no longer exist at our school. So, standing committee chairs that have been on our board for years are now no longer on the board and she is appointing people to non-existent (no longer pertinent) positions.

Officer positions and the composition of the board may only be defined in the bylaws, so what the standing rules say on those subject is irrelevant.

Standing committees are a bit more complicated. If the bylaws define certain standing committees and do not authorize the creation of other standing committees, no others may be added, except by amending the bylaws. So it may well be that what the standing rules say on this subject is also irrelevant.

If the bylaws are silent on standing committees, however, standing committees may indeed be established by standing rule, and such rules remain in force until they are rescinded. The fact that the organization has erroneously failed to appoint members to those committees for several years does not mean the committees cease to exist.

So what do your bylaws say on the matter of officers, the members of the board, and standing committees?

4 hours ago, Guest Anonymous said:

Last year we added a Standing Committee Chair position. It was proposed by the president and the board voted to approve it. There are minutes to reflect this. However, because the Standing Rules were not updated when this happened, she is saying this position does not actually exist. I am so confused. If our executive board voted to add a position to the board, we have minutes that reflect that, doesn't that have precedence over an outdated Standing Rules document?  

For starters, it must be understood that the bylaws take precedence over both. The membership of the board may only be defined in the bylaws. If certain standing committees are specified in the bylaws, additional standing committees may not be created unless the bylaws authorize this (or by amending the bylaws). If the bylaws are silent on this subject, standing committees may be established by standing rule. A new standing committee may be created by adopting a new standing rule.

3 hours ago, Guest Anonymous said:

I believe when our PTA was formed about 10 years ago, they created the Standing Rules document and adopted them at that time. That (10 year old) document is literally a list of officers and Standing Committee Chairs with a description of each position - there are no other rules listed. Over the years, this document was lost (but apparently filed with the State PTA). There was not printed copy of the document in any PTA folders and so as the years passed no board members knew of it's existence. As programs changed at our school, the Standing Committees changed. Each time, a vote was put forth in front of the board to add or replace an existing position. These positions were added to a document listing officer and board members and was updated from year to year and put into the PTA folders.

What about your bylaws?

3 hours ago, Guest Anonymous said:

So, if I understand this correctly, you are saying an approved motion to add or remove a position should be understood as an amendment to the Standing Rules. Regarding vote threshold, all decisions to add or remove positions to the board were made via a motion to the entire executive board. We met quorum and as long as I can remember there were no dissenting votes. Motions to add or remove positions were declared adopted and so inherently would become new standing rules.

The membership of the board may only be defined in the bylaws, not the standing rules. The board may not have the authority to amend the bylaws.

[AFS1970]

From what others are saying it sounds like what you are calling Standing Rules may in fact be By Laws. It also seems to me that they need to be revised.

I would suggest that such a revision contains language to address two things, first the creation of new committees including who creates them and who appoints them. Second how committees are disbanded when a program at the school ends.