Standing Rules

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

I am working with a nonprofit organization which has membership.  The membership elects officers and directors of the board every two years during its business meeting.  I noticed that there are two separate groups of standing rules.  One applies to the business meeting which I understand.  They are proposed to the membership and the membership votes to accept or reject the rules.

The second group applies to the board of directors.  They cover travel expenses, officer's compensation, use of credit card and so forth.  The board is new, recently elected by the membership last June.  They want to change the board standing rules.  I find this a violation of internal controls and to change the rules, they need to be brought up during the next business meeting in 2021 so the membership can vote to approve or reject the changes.  

I don't find it appropriate for the board to change their own rules as they are there to prevent checks and balances.

Your thoughts?

[Guest Zev]

If the membership adopted both sets of rules, one for itself and one for the board, then only the membership can change any of them. If the board itself adopted the second group of rules then they could conceivably change them. However, the membership could countermand them at some point in the future. The point is that it depends on who enacted the two sets of rules.

It seems just a little bit harsh to make the board wait two entire years before a resolution is advanced. Since elections are held every two years is appears as though as a member of the board there would be no hope of seeing any change in these rules during my tenure.