Organizer/ president

[Guest Tom]

I believe it is a conflict of the members for the local organizer to also hold an office with the local, such as the president.So the question i have is are there any rules anywhere the speaks against this

[Dan Honemann]

I believe it is a conflict of the members for the local organizer to also hold an office with the local, such as the president.So the question i have is are there any rules anywhere the speaks against this

Not in Robert's Rules of Order, no.

[Guest Tom]

Not in Robert's Rules of Order, no.

So the organizer who is employed the the organization and was appointed President because the last one died.So he has to take orders from the organization he is employed from and speak up against them in some cases.There is no conflict here.?

[George Mervosh]

So the organizer who is employed the the organization and was appointed President because the last one died.So he has to take orders from the organization he is employed from and speak up against them in some cases.There is no conflict here.?

All Dan said was no rule in RONR speaks to this. If you don't like it, suggest a bylaw amendment to prevent it in the future since that's were office holding limitations should be placed.

[David A Foulkes]

So the organizer who is employed the the organization and was appointed President because the last one died.So he has to take orders from the organization he is employed from and speak up against them in some cases.There is no conflict here.?

You touch superficially on some issues (holding two positions, officer also being an employee, what party has authority over him, "conflict of interest") that really are specific to your organization. There isn't much, if anything, in there that seems to be of a parliamentary significance that RONR would be of any help. You should check with your governing documents (charter, constitution, bylaws, etc) to see what they say about these matters.

[Gary Novosielski]

So the organizer who is employed the the organization and was appointed President because the last one died.So he has to take orders from the organization he is employed from and speak up against them in some cases.There is no conflict here.?

There may well be a conflict but that wasn't your question.

You asked if there were any rules against it, and there are not, at least not in RONR. There may be rules in your bylaws about it, or there may not, or there may not but you'd like to add some.

In any case, that's where they would have to be--in your bylaws, or in other rules adopted by your organization.

[Rev Ed]

Page 394 of RONR states that this member should not vote on any issue that he/she has a direct interest, but is not compelled to abstain from voting.

However, the organization is free to determine what constitutes a "conlfict of interest" and the effect of that conflict - i.e. some organizations require that a member who has a direct "conflict" to leave the room during discussion and/or voting on the issue. However, this is up to organization, and beyond the scope of RONR.

The organiation, as others have spoken, also have the right to change the qualifications of officers and directors from those in RONR, or to add qualifications. Again, that is up to the organization, and is beyond the scope of RONR.

[Josh Martin]

However, the organization is free to determine what constitutes a "conlfict of interest" and the effect of that conflict - i.e. some organizations require that a member who has a direct "conflict" to leave the room during discussion and/or voting on the issue. However, this is up to organization, and beyond the scope of RONR.

The organiation, as others have spoken, also have the right to change the qualifications of officers and directors from those in RONR, or to add qualifications. Again, that is up to the organization, and is beyond the scope of RONR.

Although it should be clear that the organization must amend the Bylaws in order to do these things.

[Gary Novosielski]

The [organization], as others have spoken, also have the right to change the qualifications of officers and directors from those in RONR, or to add qualifications.

They'd be more successful trying to add qualifications than to change them. Apart from getting enough votes to be elected, RONR is quite barren with respect to the qualifications for officers. According to RONR they don't even have to be members.

The qualifications for officers, in fact their very existence, including having a board of directors in the first place, all must be spelled out in detail in the bylaws.

[Rev Ed]

They'd be more successful trying to add qualifications than to change them. Apart from getting enough votes to be elected, RONR is quite barren with respect to the qualifications for officers. According to RONR they don't even have to be members.

The qualifications for officers, in fact their very existence, including having a board of directors in the first place, all must be spelled out in detail in the bylaws.

To me, I have always thought that the "Default" situation should be that officers be "full" members of the Board, although this need not be the situation.

But, I agree, that it's easier to simply add qualifications - for example, that a person who holds a "paid" position

that reports to the Board cannot also serve on the Board. This stops this type of situation from occurring in the beginning.

[Robert B Fish]

To me, I have always thought that the "Default" situation should be that officers be "full" members of the Board, although this need not be the situation.

But, I agree, that it's easier to simply add qualifications - for example, that a person who holds a "paid" position

that reports to the Board cannot also serve on the Board. This stops this type of situation from occurring in the beginning.

"Be careful what you wish for; you might get it." <g>

Many organizations add office-holding limitations that seem good at a point in time forget to remove them with that situation no longer applies. Then, later, the organization can't get the best people to serve as officers because of limitations that appear silly. They end up accepting a poor second to run the organization and then wonder why the members are leaving.

The best situation is to not elect officers who can't serve the best interests of the organization and avoid telling the nominating committee how to pick them.

-Bob

[Gary Novosielski]

To me, I have always thought that the "Default" situation should be that officers be "full" members of the Board, although this need not be the situation.

But, I agree, that it's easier to simply add qualifications - for example, that a person who holds a "paid" position

that reports to the Board cannot also serve on the Board. This stops this type of situation from occurring in the beginning.

That's interesting but, in fact, the "default" situation is that there is no board at all.

So if you want one, you still have to add one, according to RONR. And yes, it's quite common that the Executive Director is a paid employee and, ex-officio, a non-voting member of the board, but that's because it's common to adopt such a bylaw. By default in RONR, presuming there is a board, all "members" of the board are what you apparently call "full" members, so you get your wish.

That doesn't change the fact that the OP will still have to search the society's bylaws for any restrictions because there are none in RONR.

[hmtcastle]

it's quite common that the Executive Director is a paid employee and, ex-officio, a non-voting member of the board, but that's because it's common to adopt such a bylaw

Though it should be noted that RONR says (p. 448) only that the executive director "is sometimes ex officio the secretary of the executive committee (and sometimes of the board)", thereby avoiding that unfortunate expression, "non-voting member".

[Gary Novosielski]

Though it should be noted that RONR says (p. 448) only that the executive director "is sometimes ex officio the secretary of the executive committee (and sometimes of the board)", thereby avoiding that unfortunate expression, "non-voting member".

Yes, it probably should be.