I like the president elect or past president role.Our situation is strange because we are entering an written agreement with the district that we stay intact as is for one year due to the principal change over. We are guranteed our dates, events, fundraisers, storage, etc til June 2006. In that time we need to develop a relationship with our new principal so not only am I breaking in two leaders but a new principal. The bylaw changes is really minor to us because we are so layed back but I would like it all out front.
I just need to figure wording and what would work best for us...how about secretary, treasurer, past president, co=presidents?
What about having a president elect.
Right now you have the only athority. Until you finish training them and it's time for them to take over they have no voting power. Make sure that they have very defined roles as to not make problems down the road.
Pals. since you're amending the by-laws why not make a position titled "Past President" and then have two co-presidents. You can still have 1 VP if you want, that can fill in in the absence of one of the Co-Presidents. But if you have 3 co-president's, one day down the line it may turn into conflicts etc.
Here's what I mean, it's great now, that the three of you get along and work well together, but what if one day down the line the 3 presidents don't get along? And what if there are 3 brand new people who elected in to be co-presidents and the past president doesn't even get a position? Then you have potential for problems with 3 people struggling in a tug-of-war in the same position. So if you keep a position for a Past President, then you are guaranteed that the Past President has a position to help and be a voting member of the board, but is also there to mentor, support and advise if needed. I hope this makes sense. Good luck.
We have Co-Presidents and no VP. In my experience with being a CO-Pres, once as the "Jr" or new one and then being "Sr" for 3 more years is this. I have worked with 3 different people. Make sure you have a good working relationship. Make sure you clearly define who is doing what. One year I basically "shadowed" and learned and listened ALOT. My belief was that I was the new person and I should respect and learn from the Co President who was there for many years and had a lot of wisdom and good things going.
The next year no one wanted the position so I got someone who I knew I could work well with and it was great for 2 years!
The next year I had a new person who was never ever on the board previously and did not seem to want to listen and learn. I do not believe I worked well with her as she did not seem to want to learn from an "elder" so to speak and did not follow through on tasks that were given to her after she was "shown the ropes".
I wonder if the fact that they both have never been officers and both seem to bring different strong points to the table will help. They both have so much to offer and they both really want to learn, I was thinking just mentoring them and they each have certain responsibilites to learn and go from there. I know it is a change but I do feel that it will work, heck we have nothing to lose!
Our bylaws has a simple statement that "any office may be co-chaired".
For us, the fact that an office is co-chaired doesn't affect the existance of another office.
My own experience with co-chairing the presidency wasn't a good one. Both of us were strong leaders, friends, and good people. But it was just too stressful and complicated.
But I know others posting on the Forum have found ways to make it work well.
