By-Laws: Badly Written or...?

[BabbsJohnson]

This entry in the By-Laws I am working with is worded in a way I'm not sure how to interpret...

When it says "supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and the officers thereof"

I'm confused about the last bit: "and the officers thereof" 

Does this mean (subject to the control of the Board) that the President supervises, directs and controls "all the business and affairs" of the officers?

 

I realize this is not RONR, just looking for input I guess. When I say "working with" I mean trying to explain them to someone else.

Edited May 10, 2019 at 05:55 AM by Nosey
typo fix

[Guest Zev]

I take this to mean that the president is the spokesperson for the board and makes sure the committees and officers understand what the board wants and answers any questions about those directives. But this is just a guess. Since I am not a member of this society then my opinion is not worth very much. Your society will have to decide for itself what this really means.

[BabbsJohnson]

37 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I take this to mean that the president is the spokesperson for the board and makes sure the committees and officers understand what the board wants and answers any questions about those directives. But this is just a guess. Since I am not a member of this society then my opinion is not worth very much. Your society will have to decide for itself what this really means.

Even though you are not a member, It's useful just the same.

I assume also that the President must be informaed as the will of the board, and not make any assumptions on their own and what that might be, in any given situation.

Example: Powers of the President cannot be interpretated as anything but "subject to the control of the board", meaning there are not powers that exist for that role that are independant of the board's collective power.

 

A couple of examples:

The president cannot veto (and block) something the board demonstrates it's will to move forward on.

A president cannot define it's own powers that are independant of the board, unless the By-Laws deemed it so in some way, like saying something like "The President has the ability to define the powers of the role of president, or other officers, as they see fit, without the support of a majority of the board."

Thos are both kind of major, and powers like that would have to be specifically defined in the By-Laws, correct?

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Nosey said:

The president cannot veto (and block) something the board demonstrates it's will to move forward on.

 

Your bylaw specifically says that the President is subject to the board, not vice-versa, so I agree.

2 hours ago, Nosey said:

 A president cannot define it's own powers that are independant of the board, unless the By-Laws deemed it so in some way, like saying something like "The President has the ability to define the powers of the role of president, or other officers, as they see fit, without the support of a majority of the board."

 

I agree. In addition, the board could not expand upon the powers granted in the bylaws to the President, so certainly the President cannot, either. 

[BabbsJohnson]

35 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Your bylaw specifically says that the President is subject to the board, not vice-versa, so I agree.

I agree. In addition, the board could not expand upon the powers granted in the bylaws to the President, so certainly the President cannot, either. 

Thank you.

I have written a bit of a short bit on the subject, possibly a blog entry-to-be, still cleaning it up a bit.

I may put it here if anyone would be willing to give me their take, and possibly tell me if they see I’m off-base with anything.

 

[Richard Brown]

Nosey, the provision you are referring to is not that unusual. I have seen similar bylaw provisions many times. That provision basically says that the president is the Chief Operating Officer of the organization, but that he is subject to the orders and control of the board.