Most organizations follow Robert's Rules of Order for general meeting procedures. Under RRO, the president does not vote on business issues UNLESS the vote is by ballot.
Often you'll hear this as "the president only votes to break a tie". It's actually that the president only votes if his/her vote changes the outcome. I'll list some examples at the end.
The main reason is that the president has the power of being presiding officer and could perhaps unfairly influence the other voting members. As president his/her job is to impartially conduct the business of the organization.
In our own case, I have to admit we applied RRO in general terms, not always following every single nuance of the rules - such as this one. There was never an attempt to usurp someone's rights, but the practicalities of the president not voicing a position/voting in a very small decision making body also have to be weighed. In general parlimentary guides I've seen this rule about the president not voting can be suspended for small groups, like less than a dozen. But I don't think RRO makes that provision.
Examples of when president can vote:
Simple majority required. 5 for / 5 against.
President = yes, then majority vote is yes.
President = no, no impact, no vote.
A tie doesn't mean you need a tie breaker, it means you didn't achieve majority.
Simple majority required. 9 for / 8 against
President = no, then motion fails because tie does not equal majority
President = yes, no impact, so no vote
2/3 majority required. 5 for / 3 against
President = yes, motion passes with 2/3 vote (6 out of 9)
President = no, no impact, so no vote
As President, I signed all contracts, but they had been discussed at meetings or with the Principal and accepted. I don't see it being a problem unless the President is entering a contractual agreement to spend PTO funds without the knowledge of the PTO membership.
Yes, the president can have a vote. They are a PTO member and I don't see why they shouldn't be able to vote on the issues.
But why any of this would be in the 501C application is beyond me. This is usually noted in the bylaws.
Most of the fundraising companies we used at elementary required 2 signatures on their contracts(I'm sure not all do). Usually the VP of Fundraising and the Principal signed the contracts. I guess we never had a problem with anyone just signing something with out an approving vote, so I know there is nothing in the bylaws. I think it's a good idea. Keeps someone from just signing your group up for any old thing. I also think you could do either of the ways mentioned above: Require two signatures or require that the President sign only with an approved vote according to the bylaws. Ideally you should probably require 2 signatures with an approved vote according to the bylaws. Who says 2 people can't get together and come up with some scheme?
I don't see a problem with the President being able to sign something as a representative for the group, as long as what he/she was signing was approved per the guidelines set forth in the Bylaws. Some Bylaws indicate that only the Executive board has the right to vote, while most tend to allow all those at a meeting vote. If a vote has been taken and approved, then allowing the President to be the one to sign isn't an issue.
IMO, there are many other items that you should ensure make it into your Bylaws. Such as who can run for an Executive position (should staff members be allowed?), the voting process, who is considered a member, financial processes, the interaction of the Principal (for a group such as yours I would recommend making it so the Principal never has control or signing of the funds), etc.
One thing you could have put in is what would be the process if someone, like the President, did not follow the Bylaws. Say the Bylaws state that the President can sign a contract as long as whatever the contract is for was approved via a properly taken vote of all members in attendance at a meeting. But instead the President signs off without the vote. What is the recourse?
There's no reason to even have that in a 501 submission--or at least there wasn't in our submission that was granted a couple of months ago. Others are smarter than me but I wouldn't sign up to something where there is a one person rule for anything. Too much opporunity for abuse.
We are in the process of reorganizing under the 501 c 3 status. Our attorney gave us a draft of proposed bylaws and they state that the president can sign contracts for the org. We thopught it would be a good idea to have 2 signatures on contracts. Is this appropriate or should the president have the authority to be the only signature? Also, does the Pres have the right to vote on issues and officer elections? any input would be helpful. I guess bottom line is, how much power does the Pres have?
