Shared Position on the Board

[Guest jean Pfeifer]

What are the pro's and con's if two people share a position?

[Robert B Fish]

What are the pro's and con's if two people share a position?

Unless your bylaws allow, you can't do it, and RONR does not recommend that you have co-anythings. If your organization really needs another board member, increase your board. If you need 2 people to lead a committee, divide the committee into 2 or have a chairman and a vice-chairman.

-Bob

[Guest Jean Pfeifer]

Unless your bylaws allow, you can't do it, and RONR does not recommend that you have co-anythings. If your organization really needs another board member, increase your board. If you need 2 people to lead a committee, divide the committee into 2 or have a chairman and a vice-chairman.

-Bob

[Guest Jean Pfeifer]

Bob, Thanks for replying. When you say "you can't do it", please say why. Is it in RONR?

Jean

[hmtcastle]

When you say "you can't do it", please say why. Is it in RONR?

You can't do it unless your bylaws specifically say you can. For example, if your bylaws say there shall be a treasurer, it means just one treasurer.

RONR strongly advises against co-chairmen on p.168.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

When you say "you can't do it", please say why.

Is it in RONR?

Yes, it is in RONR.

See page 168:

The anomalous title “co-chairman” should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position.

When more than two people have the same title, then that is more of a committee than it is an office.

Committees cannot be elected to one office.

You have an incomplete election when two people tie for an office, or when two people fail to achieve a majority of votes cast for an office.

[Josh Martin]

You can't do it unless your bylaws specifically say you can. For example, if your bylaws say there shall be a treasurer, it means just one treasurer.

RONR strongly advises against co-chairmen on p.168.

Well, they can't do it for positions defined in the Bylaws (unless the Bylaws allow for co-whatevers), for exactly the reason you describe.

An organization can choose to have co-whatevers for positions not defined in the Bylaws, such as establishing a special committee with co-chairmen. It's just a bad idea.

What are the pro's and con's if two people share a position?

The only real reason for organizations to do this is for political reasons. Perhaps the organization really likes the idea of having "equal" Presidents rather than a President and Vice President, or an organization comprised of multiple constituencies has "co-chairs" to avoid giving one group a perceived advantage in standing. Inevitably, this causes problems, as what sounded like a really good idea when you had best buddies as co-Presidents goes south when arch-rivals become co-Presidents the next year. Or even if people get along, it becomes confusing to figure out who does what.

If an organization just needs more people to get a job done, the solution is to break up the duties into multiple positions, not to have multiple people share one position.

[hmtcastle]

An organization can choose to have co-whatevers for positions not defined in the Bylaws, such as establishing a special committee with co-chairmen. It's just a bad idea.

Noted. Thanks for clarifying.

And I suppose it might not always be such a bad idea. Such as when the position is largely ceremonial or honorary, such as co-chairs of the annual awards dinner.