Our bylaws state that only the president or her designee has the right to sign contracts on behalf of the PTO. That allows other people to sign, IF the president approves it. I don't know if this would give us any legal leverage if a PTO member signed an unfavorable contract without the president's approval (thankfully we haven't been tested), but at least we have a written control to help avoid that situation.
Thanks for all of your opinions and advise. I am actually the president and this website is a great help. I am thinking along the lines of having a signed resolution from executive board and or finance committee before entering contracts. Then thew President could sign contracts without any question of whether being approved or not. It is sometimes so hard to get together for a meeting let alone to sign things. I was under the assumption that the Pres is the rep of the organization. But, you know what they say about assuming things
I guess I should clarify--if the issues are discussed and signed up by EVERYONE then I think that one person signing is okay. BUT - we recently had someone commit our PTO to an order of 8,000 dollars worth of spirit wear. Altlhough we discussed a purchase in theory and approved the types of items -- we had not approved an order price. This was dispite a written letter of procedures that said no dollars may be committed without my personal approval, a face to face discussion re: same and one by the VP with the chair as well.
So -- we could have pursued the money from the individual (who didn't have it) not picked up the order (and lost faith as an organization with a business person) or sucked it up and pushed spirit wear out the wazoo--our personal approach. For that reason I said above no one person contract committments. I guess whatever you do there can be abuses but let's just say if their is a possibility of abuse it may occur.
That particular incident colored my response above, and now that I have taken those glasses off just thought I should share the "what happened to us" story.
All contracts should be discussed at board and/or general meetings and the decision should be reflected in the minutes and then the president should sign.
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.
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 (6/9)
