Motion

[Guest deb0578]

In 2007 a motion was made and passed to authorize the Chairman to spend up to $1,500 per month without Board approval. A new board convenes in January of every year. Is this motion still in effect for each new board that convenes after 2007? Thank you.

[hmtcastle]

Is this motion still in effect for each new board that convenes after 2007?

If it didn't provide for its own expiration, the motion remains in effect until it's rescinded or otherwise amended.

Though there might be a question as to whether the board could properly delegate this authority to the chairman in the first place.

[Guest deb0578]

In what way would be it questionable to delegate this authority?

[hmtcastle]

In what way would be it questionable to delegate this authority?

"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. Such committees of the board always report to the board." RONR, pp. 467-468

A recent topic discussed this question.

[Guest deb0578]

"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. Such committees of the board always report to the board." RONR, pp. 467-468

A recent topic discussed this question.

[Guest deb0578]

Thank you for that clarification. Happy New Year!

[Kim Goldsworthy]

In 2007 a motion was made and passed to authorize the Chairman to spend up to $1,500 per month without Board approval.

A new board convenes in January of every year.

Is this motion still in effect for each new board that convenes after 2007?

No way to tell.

The exact wording of the motion could spin the answer "yes" to "no".

For example, the unsaid context might have been that the motion was meant for an exceptional year, and not a blanket authorization for all Chairmen, every year.

If the motion is ambiguous (and I have a hunch that if you find it now ambiguous, then it always was ambiguous), then the body who adopted the motion ought to eliminate the ambiguity, so that you (and I) don't ask people who were never there, "What were they thinking?"