Ex officio member rights

[Jayadev]

Our not for profit organization has the following provisions :

1. The Chairperson of CPP ( Council of Past Presidents) shall be an ex‐officio member of the Board of Trustees and Executive Committee without voting privileges.

2. The Chairperson of the Council shall present a report to the General Body at its annual meeting or duly called special meeting.

 

My question is whether CPP chair participate in the discussions and give advises on bylaws and constitution issues even though he is an ex officio member?

[Gary Novosielski]

If the rules in RONR apply, ex-officio members of a body have all the rights of membership including voting. 

Since your bylaws remove the right to vote, I would assume that the other rights remain.  But I am not a member of your organization, and each organization must interpret its own bylaws, where ambiguities exist.

I can tell you that if I were the CPP chair, and had no right to vote, to speak, to make motions, or to give information, leaving me only the right to sit there like a lump, I don't think I would make it to many meetings. 😷

 

 

[Jayadev]

Thanks Gary 

[Bruce Lages]

Under RONR, an ex-officio member of a particular assembly is a member by virtue of an office that person holds - e.g., the president being an ex-officio member of all committees except the nominating committee. Ex-officio members have all the rights of membership, the same as any other member of the assembly. Your rules specifically prevent the chairperson of CPP from voting, but apparently do not address the other rights of membership. The consensus here would be that all other rights of membership such as making motions and participating in debate are retained. But if there is any question on this, it is up to your organization to interpret its own rules. RONR recognizes only members, with all rights of membership, and non-members, with none of the rights of membership, and does not address levels of membership in between these two limits.

[Jayadev]

Thanks a lot Bruce  for more information.

[Rob Elsman]

The interpretation of the bylaw will have to take into account the intention or reasoning behind withtholding the right to vote.  Once it has been determined exactly why the right to vote has been withheld, the answer to the question will be easier to answer. For example, was it intended that the chairman of the CPP be nothing more than a listener to report important information back to the CPP to assist the CPP in its work? If so, it might be reasonable to conclude that the bylaw means that the chairman of the CPP has the right to attend meetings, but nothing more.  On the other hand, was the intent to provide the chairman of the CPP some limited participation in the proceedings of the Board of Trustees to assist the trustees in determining the advisability of proposed actions? In this case, the bylaw could reasonably be interpreted to mean that the chairman enjoys the right to attend meetings and participate actively in the debate.