In some other recent postings, it was board members who wanted to conduct business without the "regular" members!
Officers are officers for a reason--to facilitate and lead the group. They are also no better than anyone else, so why WOULDN'T you want them there? Our bylaws actually state that the pres and VP are ex officio members of all committees, and that was more to ensure that some people don't get to thinking that they're above doing "grunt" work. I definitely don't see any potential "conflict of interest" problems unless they're chairing, or why the "regulars" should feel they need to edit what they say. If they have a problem, why be passive-aggresive? Why not just state the problem or how they feel? I'd like to think we're all adults here. If someone is too thin skinned to take a little criticism they need to be in a different line of work! [img]tongue.gif[/img]
I also don't see the conflict. We sure don't have enough leadership-level volunteers to run a board that's merely advisory and not involved in actual projects. Our board is comprised of elected officers, designated school positions (4), parent grade reps, plus the Chairs of all our committees.
No matter what role a person has on our Exec Board, if they are that involved, they are bound to be working on committees as well.
I can see where the decision-making authority needs to be clearly defined. If you have enough confidence in someone to have them chair a project, then the fact that the president or vice president is a worker bee on that committee doesn't mean they have the right to run over the committee chair. But that's always a matter of communication and negotiation.
Don't know if it will help, but our PTO has no limitation on who can attend ANY meeting of ANY committee! In fact, a bigger problem is getting people to show up! I think it's good that you don't have Board members as committee chairs -- that gets more people involved in responsible positions. I can't understand why this is an issue for your group??
Maybe it would help if there was an agreement that Board members would not be "voting" members of a committee -- but attending committee meetings should be optional for ALL PTO members, IMHO!
According to our bylaws the committee decides what it would like to bring to the board - the board then still has to approve the proposal.
So, I don't see where the "coflict of interest" is. You are all members of the PTO and have the same goals.
Thanks for your input. This is how we felt. I'm going to print this and bring it to a meeting and see about having something put in the bylaws. I hope an outside opinion will help.
Thanks,
Beth McGoldrick
I don't understand how that's a conflict of interest being its 1 group. Your committee memebers are part of the pto, your board members are part of the pto. Unless one of the 'group's is contracting stuff out to them and making a personal profit (that is the only way I can see a conflict) then any other reason to say it is a conflict makes no sense.......you are all part of the same group. Tell them PTO's need all the help they can get and to limit the amount of help one can contribute is a huge mistake and they'll regret it later
