I heartily agree with everything Pottsville Mom added. We have the same flexibility in our group. The way meetings are run is another example. We - more or less - use Roberts Rule of Order. But, honestly, when you are in a meeting of 12-15 people all in agreement, it's not the end of the world if every motion isn't worded exactly or if we take an agenda item out of order.
The rules/bylaws are there to protect you and provide structure - especially in time of controversy. Don't take me wrong - you can't afford to get too sloppy about it, but you do need to balance people and procedure.
As to your own situation - are you sure they can't add more positions? Our bylaws, like many, have a loophole that allows the Board to vote in "other positions as needed". What is the problem with adding more at-large position? Is it the violation that needs to be pointed out? Or is it that, since this is an obvious need, maybe they should amend the bylaws to provide for such an action?
Postville Mom - okay, given the fact you have experience in at least two different non-profits and for some reason, I am thinking for some time -do you think it would be arrogant of me (being a new member of the organization) to tactfully point out the fact that adding more at-large positions than the bylaws state would be in violation of the PTOs bylaws?
Or do you think it would behoove me to accept the fact that they want to have as many members involved as possible (not letting a good thing slip by)and just go with the flow?
I don't understand the reasoning and assumption that because a member is not a board member, that it will cause members to not continue to attend meetings. Granted, most meetings are only attended by board members (who are the only ones with voting priveledges)- not being a board member has not caused me not to attend the meetings - but, then I realize that I'm not your average bear - never had a mass mentality mindset. [img]smile.gif[/img]
I do want to stand by my own ethics and principles and yet not appear to be too unyielding.
For instance, our bylaws state that you have to have paid dues before becoming a voting member. Do we check before a meeting? No. We take it that anyone caring enought to attend a meeting has paid the dues.
Our bylaws state that we have to announce a meeting seven days in advance. Are we always able to do that? No. When we need to get something together in a hurry, we can't wait.
These things are always included in the bylaws.
I, also, work in the corporate world (a LARGE not-for-profit). One of the things I have learned is to be flexible. Being an accountant, I tend toward the rigid, but having been in the volunteer arena quite sometime, I have learned that when I am to rigid, I am doing it all myself.
I agree that it would not be wise or comfortable to have a very rigid atmosphere.
Just curious tho - does abiding by the bylaws HAVE to create a very rigid atmosphere? And, what would be the purpose of having bylaws if the board members decided to pick and choose which ones they decided to adhere to? If certain items are not really that important, then why choose to include them in the bylaws in the first place?
Not being defensive - just trying to get an understanding of what others view as a balance in these parent-teacher groups. :confused:
I think you have to strike a balance between following the letter of the "law" and the spirit. A very rigid atmosphere will tend to push folks away. I know it would me.
