membership approval of financial decisions

[Guest Amy]

Does the budget or finance committee have unlimited powers to make all financial decisions of an organization. What accountability is there to the committee as a whole? What kinds of decisions require membership approval?

[Josh Martin]

Does the budget or finance committee have unlimited powers to make all financial decisions of an organization.

No. The Budget or Finance Committee only has the power delegated to it by the organization's rules or by the general membership.

What accountability is there to the committee as a whole?

I'm not entirely clear on what you're asking here.

What kinds of decisions require membership approval?

Everything, except cases in which the Budget or Finance Committee has been given power to act on its own (either through the organization's rules or by the general membership). By default, committees can only make recommendations to the parent assembly.

[Tim Wynn]

Does the budget or finance committee have unlimited powers to make all financial decisions of an organization.

RONR doesn't give this committee any power. It will have only the power given to it by your organization.

What accountability is there to the committee as a whole?

A committee usually answers to the body that created it. The level of authority this committee has will depend on your rules. Check your bylaws to see what powers and duties are prescribed for this committee.

What kinds of decisions require membership approval?

Any action taken in the name of the organization requires membership approval, unless authority to take action is delegated elsewhere.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Does the budget or finance committee have unlimited powers to make all financial decisions of an organization?

No.

Committees are powerless.

What accountability is there to the committee as a whole?

That is a variable.

Whoever or whatever created the committee (e.g., the bylaws created the committee; the general membership created the committee; the board created the committee) must set up the method by which accountability shall be enforced.

Since, by default, committees are powerless, then, by default, there is no need for accountability, as the committee can do nothing but meet, talk, and generate a report (for the superior body to act upon).

What kinds of decisions require membership approval?

By default, EVERYTHING.

There is no power to any body OTHER THAN the general membership, by default.

The exception would be (a.) one's bylaws; (b.) an adopted motion; which says otherwise.

[Trina]

No.

Committees are powerless.

....

There is no power to any body OTHER THAN the general membership, by default.

The exception would be (a.) one's bylaws; (b.) an adopted motion; which says otherwise.

And I think it's fair to add the caveat that a motion to give a committee power would have to be a motion from the general membership (not a motion adopted by the board, for example).

"As a general principle, a board cannot delegate its authority - that is, it cannot empower a subordinate group to act independently in its name - except as may be authorized by the bylaws (of the society) or other instrument under which the board is constituted; but any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 467-68).

[hmtcastle]

I'm not sure how this statement about boards,

And I think it's fair to add the caveat that a motion to give a committee power would have to be a motion from the general membership (not a motion adopted by the board, for example).

Is supported by this statement about boards,

" . . .any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions."

[Trina]

I'm not sure how this statement about boards,

Is supported by this statement about boards,

Perhaps I should have cut the citation off at the semicolon, to avoid confusion . Or I should have included the next sentence, about the committee reporting back to the board...

I was thinking of this recent thread:

I thought it was pretty clear from that discussion that the board cannot delegate its authority to take action exercise decision-making powers that belong to the board, unless the bylaws or the general membership (by motion) have permitted such delegation.

edited to try to express the idea more precisely... since 'action' such as actually painting the clubhouse on orders of the board is clearly appropriate for a committee; whereas 'action' such as adopting a motion to authorize the painting project (in the name of the board) is not appropriate.

[Josh Martin]

I'm not sure how this statement about boards,

And I think it's fair to add the caveat that a motion to give a committee power would have to be a motion from the general membership (not a motion adopted by the board, for example).

Is supported by this statement about boards,

"...any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 467-68).

These statements are not in conflict. A board can appoint committees that follow the board's instructions, but it cannot empower a committee to act on its behalf without authorization from the Bylaws. A common example might be a case where the Bylaws authorize the Board to fill a vacancy in an officer position. The Board could not appoint a committee to fill the position on its own. The Board could, however, appoint a nominating committee, and give it specific instructions regarding how many nominees to select, what criteria and processes should be used to select nominees, when the report should be submitted, etc. The final decision would be made by the board.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm not sure how this statement about boards,

...

Is supported by this statement about boards,

...

It means that boards can create committees, but not committees with power.

[hmtcastle]

It means that boards can create committees, but not committees with power.

Well, I think this was pretty much hashed out in the topic that Trina was good enough to reference. That's where Mr. Novosielski says,

"I'm glad to see that the cited paragraph does allow the board to empower committees to carry out orders of the board (not only those of the assembly), so the board would violate no principle of parliamentary law by authorizing a subcommittee to paint the proverbial clubhouse--or for that matter do any act which the board authorizes."

[Josh Martin]

It means that boards can create committees, but not committees with power.

Well, I think this was pretty much hashed out in the topic that Trina was good enough to reference. That's where Mr. Novosielski says,

"I'm glad to see that the cited paragraph does allow the board to empower committees to carry out orders of the board (not only those of the assembly), so the board would violate no principle of parliamentary law by authorizing a subcommittee to paint the proverbial clubhouse--or for that matter do any act which the board authorizes."

The phrase "with power" in reference to committees has a particular meaning in parliamentary law. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 473, lines 9-11) A committee appointed "with power" to paint the clubhouse would be authorized not only to do the painting, but to authorize the expenditure of funds to buy any necessary supplies. This would not be an appropriate motion for a board to adopt.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, I think this was pretty much hashed out in the topic that Trina was good enough to reference. That's where Mr. Novosielski says,

"I'm glad to see that the cited paragraph does allow the board to empower [Mr. Mountcastle's emphasis] committees to carry out orders of the board (not only those of the assembly), so the board would violate no principle of parliamentary law by authorizing a subcommittee to paint the proverbial clubhouse--or for that matter do any act which the board authorizes."

But apparently not quite hashed out enough.

Yes, I did say that. However, "empowering" a committee to carry out orders is not the same as appointing a committee with power, as Mr. Mountcastle, on reflection, will doubtless recall.

The rest of the quote went on to clarify that I understood this at the time.

The distinction is one of action vs. decision. The board may delegate the power to act (to carry out an order) but not the responsibility to decide (which actions should be ordered) and that's a good principle for the principals to follow.

As usual, the General nailed it.

[hmtcastle]

Yes, I did say that. However, "empowering" a committee to carry out orders is not the same as appointing a committee with power, as Mr. Mountcastle, on reflection, will doubtless recall.

With apologies to Mr. Novosielski, I must admit I did not recall the distinction between a committee "with power" and a committee that had been empowered. But I will add that to my list of words that mean one thing in what might be called "plain English" and quite another thing in RONR. A list with "reconsider" at the top.

Thanks for driving home the distinction one more time.

[Gary Novosielski]

With apologies to Mr. Novosielski, I must admit I did not recall the distinction between a committee "with power" and a committee that had been empowered. But I will add that to my list of words that mean one thing in what might be called "plain English" and quite another thing in RONR. A list with "reconsider" at the top.

Thanks for driving home the distinction one more time.

I contributed to the confusion by using "empowered" in a generic sense, when the "power" in question was unquestionably limited. A better choice might have been "allowed".

If I may, I'd like to nominate for inclusion on the list the word "clearly," as in: "clearly in the nature of a rule of order".

[Josh Martin]

If I may, I'd like to nominate for inclusion on the list the word "clearly," as in: "clearly in the nature of a rule of order".

It would seem to me that "clearly" is not a term of art in parliamentary law. Perhaps you could provide an example?

It is true that what is "clear" to some is not clear to others, if that is what you mean, but that is not limited to parliamentary law.

[hmtcastle]

It would seem to me that "clearly" is not a term of art in parliamentary law.

A recent post has me adding "dispense with" to my list. As in, "dispense with the reading of the minutes" which, as Mr. Elsman points out, means only to postpone the reading, not to, uh, dispense with it.