Guest Fighter fir Rights Posted October 25, 2018 at 03:26 AM Report Share Posted October 25, 2018 at 03:26 AM Should being on 3 local 401c3 organizations as treasurer a conflict of interest? If so, what is the best way to address it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:09 AM Report Share Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:09 AM No rule in RONR prohibits it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fighter for Rights Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:39 AM Report Share Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:39 AM Probably not a good idea to have one person control all of the towns money though, right? Maybe a site on non profits will address it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 25, 2018 at 05:03 AM Report Share Posted October 25, 2018 at 05:03 AM My recommendation would be that, on this question, which has more of a legal than parliamentary flavor, it is better to ask a lawyer than any website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Figher for Rights Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:39 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:39 PM Is this something that can be amended into the bylaws? For example “shall not be on more than one board in the same officer position” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:45 PM Report Share Posted October 25, 2018 at 04:45 PM 4 minutes ago, Guest Figher for Rights said: Is this something that can be amended into the bylaws? For example “shall not be on more than one board in the same officer position” Requirement/restrictions for holding an office are properly found in the bylaws, yes, although we don't provide suggested bylaw language here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 26, 2018 at 04:34 AM Report Share Posted October 26, 2018 at 04:34 AM 11 hours ago, Guest Figher for Rights said: Is this something that can be amended into the bylaws? For example “shall not be on more than one board in the same officer position” Well, I'd want see the rest of that sentence, but I'd probably vote No on that. It gets rather dicey having bylaws that propose to regulate one's participation in other organizations. Also I don't think "same officer position" is sufficiently well defined. I tend to trust such matters to the electorate. If they think this would be a problem, they will presumably vote for someone else. I wish I had a buck for every organization that found itself caught short (usually for a treasurer, as it happens) because of some provision in the bylaws that disqualified or term-limited the only person willing to serve. They usually come here hoping there is some emergency provision in RONR to get around their own bylaws, and are saddened when they get the bad news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted October 26, 2018 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted October 26, 2018 at 01:09 PM 8 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: I tend to trust such matters to the electorate. A ton of wisdom in that short sentence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 26, 2018 at 01:57 PM Report Share Posted October 26, 2018 at 01:57 PM Yes, the electorate has proven itself quite wise lately... I have no idea what this organization should do, but I'm a little less trusting in the wisdom of crowds, it seems, than most here. Sometimes, I think organizations need to prohibit certain things in their bylaws precisely because they know themselves, and know that, in the moment, electing the one person nominated, despite a conflict, will be easier than working harder to find a non-conflicted candidate. Special circumstances also present themselves if one or the other position is appointed rather than elected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted October 26, 2018 at 02:07 PM Report Share Posted October 26, 2018 at 02:07 PM I heartily agree. It is a shame to see the path of virtue trumped by a mercurial electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 28, 2018 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2018 at 03:40 PM On 10/26/2018 at 10:07 AM, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: I heartily agree. It is a shame to see the path of virtue trumped by a mercurial electorate. Sometimes, when the officers charged with executive, legislative, and judicial functions prove unworthy of trust, and the bylaws, which cannot enforce themselves, fail to protect the society because they are not followed; points of order are ruled not well-taken; and appeals are not sustained by the majority of the governing body, then the electorate becomes the last, best, hope for the future of the society. Just sayin'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 28, 2018 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2018 at 03:45 PM Sure, but don't forget who elected those officers and, if points of order are raised in the assembly, who fails to sustain the appeals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted October 28, 2018 at 05:16 PM Report Share Posted October 28, 2018 at 05:16 PM If the rules in RONR apply, no officer is elected except by a majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts