Ex-officio role

[Guest Susie]

Discussion on role of ex-officio in a city commission. Hope this doesn't get to confusing . . .

There are seven members of the city planning commission AND an ex-officio members appointed by the Council to this commission. In the past 4 years, this ex-officio member was given full motioning and voting rights,  and also included in the count for the quorum. This was because of the lack of people who volunteered for the commission, and the number fell to 5 of the required 7 members, sometimes making it difficult to hold meetings. 

For the last 2 years, there has been an overflow of people wanting to be on the commission and the 7 member requirement has been filled. The commission members now want to confirm the ex-officio's role, and are concerned since this position really gives a Council member two votes - one at the commission level and one at the City Council level, where all final decision must be made on ordinances, etc. coming from recommendation of the Planning commission.

I see that RONR says that if an ex-officio position is made "by virtue of a public office, " then that role is really "under the authority" of the Council, and not the commission, so there should be no be motioning, voting or quorum counting privileges. (Chapter XVI - 11th Edition)

Am I reading this correctly?

There will be a bylaw change in the wording to be voted on this week to confirm the ex-officio's  role as an appointed one to the commission by the city council with no mention of privileges. . Before all it said that there were seven members "including one ex-officio member as the City Council liaison."

Further complication is that ALL volunteers are "appointed"  to the commission by a committee of 2 City council members and one member of the commission. 

There is resistance to the change from the present liaison from the Council. He wants to keep these privileges of the ex-officio role, then vote on approval/denials again at the Council meetings. .

 

[Joshua Katz]

This is confusing, largely because either your government has rules which use words in non-standard ways, or has misunderstood its own rules. To begin with, the general rule is that ex-officio members are members, and may participate fully. Either this is not the case in your organization, or someone misunderstood it and denied them the right to participate for some length of time.

The other issue is that it does not sound like the member under discussion is actually ex-officio at all, but rather is appointed by another body, but specifically chosen for this position. An ex-officio member is a member solely by virtue of an office held. If the Council selects and appoints people, they are not ex-officio.  

If an ex-officio member is not under the control of the organization, he can still participate fully, but is not counted for quorum purposes. Be that as it may, RONR's statement that public officials who are ex-officio members are not under the control of the organization is applicable to ordinary organizations - for instance, the Lions Club may put the Mayor on its board ex-officio. Here, it's somewhat less applicable, since both are governing bodies of the same "membership," i.e. the citizenry. I'm not sure what that does to that rule, to be honest, as applying RONR to public bodies is challenging, and usually is complicated by governing laws.

It does seem clear that whatever the role of the "ex-officio" member is, your organization had no right at all to modify it, and if the ex-officio member cannot vote by rule, then you had no business adopting a rule permitting voting - let alone modifying your own quorum requirement, which probably comes from a statute. But what's done is done, and what matters now is what the actual rules say. For that, you will need to consult the precise language of the statutes or other rules setting this up.

[Bruce Lages]

You are misreading what RONR says about ex-officio members of committees and boards. "If the ex-officio member is not under the authority of the society, he has all the rights and privileges of board membership, including the right to make motions and to vote, but none of the obligations..." (11th ed. p. 483, ll.30-33). The only difference between such an ex-officio member and the other members is that the ex-officio member should not be counted in determining the number required for a quorum (p.483, l.35- p. 484, l.3)

However, as Mr. Katz points out, it isn't really clear that your council-appointed member fits RONR's definition of an ex-officio member not under the authority of the society. You should heed his advice and check your local ordinances and policies to see what this member's status is.

Edited January 9, 2019 at 04:55 PM by Bruce Lages

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

1 hour ago, Guest Susie said:

There will be a bylaw change in the wording to be voted on this week to confirm the ex-officio's  role as an appointed one to the commission by the city council with no mention of privileges. . Before all it said that there were seven members "including one ex-officio member as the City Council liaison."

This is likely a misuse of the term ex-officio. Your council seems to think it means "member lite" but what it really means is someone who has membership by virtue of holding office in another body. If your bylaws say only that this person is a member of the commission, then she or he has all the privileges of any other member.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Susie said:

I see that RONR says that if an ex-officio position is made "by virtue of a public office, " then that role is really "under the authority" of the Council, and not the commission, so there should be no be motioning, voting or quorum counting privileges. (Chapter XVI - 11th Edition)

Am I reading this correctly?

No. An ex-officio member has all of the rights of membership in any case, unless the rule providing for the ex-officio member provides otherwise. The only difference regarding whether an ex-officio member is or is not under the authority of the organization is whether the ex-officio member counts for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present.

See FAQ #2.

I also agree with Mr. Katz that this person is not really an ex-officio member in the sense the term is ordinarily used, but since all members have all of the rights of membership, it doesn’t make much difference. Ex-officio means “by virtue of the office.” It ordinarily refers to a member who automatically serves on a board or committee by virtue of some other position he holds. For instance, an organization’s rules might provide that the Treasurer is an ex-officio member of the Finance Committee. You say that this person is appointed to the commission (albeit in a different manner than the other members), which is not really an “ex-officio member.”

2 hours ago, Guest Susie said:

There is resistance to the change from the present liaison from the Council. He wants to keep these privileges of the ex-officio role, then vote on approval/denials again at the Council meetings.

That is his right, unless and until the rule or law establishing the “ex-officio” member is amended to provide otherwise.

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

If an ex-officio member is not under the control of the organization, he can still participate fully, but is not counted for quorum purposes. Be that as it may, RONR's statement that public officials who are ex-officio members are not under the control of the organization is applicable to ordinary organizations - for instance, the Lions Club may put the Mayor on its board ex-officio. Here, it's somewhat less applicable, since both are governing bodies of the same "membership," i.e. the citizenry. I'm not sure what that does to that rule, to be honest, as applying RONR to public bodies is challenging, and usually is complicated by governing laws.

Since you correctly note that this person isn’t actually an ex-officio member, it seems clear to me that this rule is inapplicable.

Edited January 9, 2019 at 07:00 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/9/2019 at 11:07 AM, Guest Susie said:

There will be a bylaw change in the wording to be voted on this week to confirm the ex-officio's  role as an appointed one to the commission by the city council with no mention of privileges. . Before all it said that there were seven members "including one ex-officio member as the City Council liaison."

Appointed or elected makes no difference as far as membership rights are concerned, so I would not think it worthy of a bylaws change.  In any case, if there is no mention of privileges, then the member has all the rights and privileges provided for in RONR, which is the same as any other member.