One other note - on our parent reps, they weren't recruited to merely be board members. This was a position. Sort of a super class mom/dad. We wanted one parent in each grade to communicate among class parents. They made sure each class had the support it needed AND they took information back and forth to the board. Often, our parrent rep was one of the 4 or 5 class parents for that grade. The positions actually fell under the Volunteer Coordintor role. But - as per our bylaws - these positions were also part of the board (as was the volunteer coordintar).

They each gave a BRIEF report at the monthly meeting for what was happening in their grade - upcoming field trips, major testing where the teachers might need extra volunteers for monitors, major projects, etc. Otherwise, we often only got information for grades who happened to have a parent serving as an officer.

In a PTO you typically don't want a higher level Board that is minimally involved and primarily has only advisory or oversight responsibilities.

You want a working board that is involved hands-on with day to day operations. All of your elected officers would typically be on the Board.

For some Board=Officers exactly. Personally, I think that's too narrow and it should be Board=Officers++

Since the board usually has a great deal of power and decision-making authority, I think it should be a large as possible - representing the PTO officers, the membership, and the school.

My advice would be to create your board from the officers, committee chairs, school staff reps (we had Principal, Vice Principal, and 2 teacher reps) and possibly parent reps. (We had a parent rep from each grade.)

But whether you choose to go with a small or large model, I don't think you group would be served to set the board up as a completely separate tier with its own officers. Either it's the same people, so pointless. Or you've just added a level of bureaucracy.

Okay,

While researching nonprofits (which we intend to be), there are usually employees/staff and a board. For example, a nonprofit would have a Board (president, vp, secretary, treasurer) and then staff (CEO, CFO, VP of Marketing, etc.).

When carrying this model to a PTO it starts to get a bit much, especially a PTO. Granted, we will not have paid "staff", but does the structure still apply?

So would we need the Board (and it's officers and committees) and then "staff" (president, treasurer, secretary) or can we combine the Board with the "staff" positions?

I certainly hope so, since we have precious few volunteers .

I don't think I've ever heard of a PTO with two sets of officers.

Some have a board that consists entirely and exclusively of officers; some have a larger board that includes committee chairs. I think you have fairly wide discretion on which way it is, but it needs to be clear in your by-laws and/or articles of incorporation.

OK, we are organizing (or reorgnizing, depends on your view:)) a PTO and are planning on filing for nonprofit status in AZ and eventually for 501c3 status.

I am unclear if PTO's (as a nonprofit and 501c3) have a Board of Directors (which have their own officers) and then a separate set of officers: President, Treasurer, etc. which handle daily affairs.

I thought (from my reading on forming a nonprofit and 501c3) that two separate groups of officers existed... but after reading articles and posts here I am now unsure...

Do some groups choose to consolidate the two, and some choose to have separate?