I honestly wouldn’t mind it all being planned out for me, it would be one less thing I would have to do. However, I do see your point. I met with the other board members a week ago (3 weeks prior to the start of school). We discussed all of the events and activities we planned to do, and proposed time and dates. I sent all the info in an email to the principal for approval. At our first meeting in Sept. we will discuss it with the other parents and then vote on it. For us, it’s not just about the board members, but about the principal and other volunteers. I would be up front about it, at your next meeting say, “Let’s look at our list of events and activities and decide on time and dates that will be convenient for all of us.” Realistically though, despite the fact that she did this without help if the time and dates really are not an inconvenience for you, I’d let it be. I would however, make sure you mention that in the future you would like to be included on decision making.
Being tax exempt is important and beneficial, in my opinion. It sounds as if you're upset that she didn't get board approval to become tax exempt ? While it would've been nice to include everyone, perhaps she truly didn't realize it would be an issue ?
Blame it on the IRS! They make a great "bad guy" and catch-all reason for changes.
Kind of kidding, but actually not. Sometimes when you try to tighten up requirements it's hard to get the previous crew on board. After all, they are "just parents"; you are "just parents". What gives YOU the right to decide you know better than them how things should work? Plus, if the way they did it before worked - what was wrong with it?
So instead of beating your head against a wall, simply "blame" a 3rd party authority figure. IRS and Auditors are best. "School Officials" can work. You aren't singling out a person (or set of officers) as having been wrong in the past. While this may be a bit of a cop out, it's actually easier and saves face for everyone. So your spiel goes something like this:
As a 501(c)(3) organization, we get many benefits, including more credibility and the ability for our donors to count their donations as charitable contributions. But in order to maintain that status, we need to make sure we are following commonly held best practices and IRS rules, which include:
* abiding by our bylaws
* proper handling of funds/cash
* assuring no individual benefits inappropriately
* fair practices
*{whatever else you are trying to hammer home}
These items should include an annual audit - which is an even greater stick when insisting on proprer financial controls. Such an audit isn't just about balancing the numbers but assuring each expenditure was authorized appropriately.
Like the others said, it's more about establishing consistent processes moving forward than looking backwards to decide how it was done incorrectly in the past. But when the old guard starts challenging the changes, it's often more effective to be able to point to a solid reason outside your own group. As for why "now", you can link it to recently become a 501(c)(3) and thus changing accordingly, or (if you've been one for awhile) that the IRS "is cracking down" or that your group has recently become aware of some rules they didn't know before.
The best way to fix this problem is to have the Treasurer put another executive board member on the check signer list and have your bank remove the current president's name, with a support letter from the principal. That way, when decisions about spending money come up, she has to consult the board to get approval to spend the membership's money, and the treasurer and other board member sign the check.
Great advice by Jewel. Totally agree that there is a nice, amture, professional way to do this. And doing the right thing has to take precedence here.
As Jewel said, will be very helpful if you present it in such a way that makes no aspersions on past practices (talks about positives and progress). And even if the past pres. does pipe up, do all you can to remain positive and give her thanks and credit for the time she gave and the things she did well.
It's less important to tip-toe around the Past President than it is for the new President to introduce the new method of decision making. When doing so, there will be no need to overly emphasize what happened in the past and why it was inappropriate/unusual/poor/bad, etc. The new President can simply introduce the by-laws to everyone and outline the process for making and voting on motions that will be used (hopefully) from this year onward.
During the introduction of the new method, if the Past President is so oblivious/foolish to actually pipe up and say, "That's not how I did it!", the New President can simply smile and say, "I understand that, but this is how the board is going to handle decisions now."
