and the the point 'that members just dont need to know was a stickler' (not on this point- I agree with above - no specifics need to be noted or recorded, it didint violate any disclosure law)

We've had quickie discissions over (fruffy and non, inpromtu lunch and cocktails) since the board happened to be a the same place, frequently and discussed informally specific issues or concerns (they dont need to be recorded and werent)

The board runs day-2-day and mundane operations 'Hence the name Board of Directors' but the general statement (not neccessarily on this topic) that "membership doesnt need to know" is... cliqueish.... ridiculous... clandestine.... rude...

You act how you think whether you percieive it to be that way or not
Shawnfuscious


I dont think anyone here thinks discussing a particular person is appropriate at a general mtg or need to call an emergency board or general mtg.

But if there is more problems with volunteers, chairs, whatever and it invovles more than 'I can get info out of this person in a timely manner or whatnot' then it does need to be addressed and recorded IMHO (i.e. Crummy fundraiser, or rep, or yearbook, or food vendor)

[ 11-02-2006, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Shawn ]

That's exactly right, beignets! It's impossible to get the full story here, especially from a few lines of text. I do personally know the folks on every side of this issue and know them all to behave with the highest levels of dignity and integrity.

The basic points are that a brand new chairman and a seasoned veteran but new officer disagreed on the best way to handle an item. The one person who could decide the issue for them is good personal friends with one outside of the PTO realm. She knew her judgement was clouded so she suggested that the four officers meet, discuss and decide on the outcome. The outcome of the meeting would be respected.

However, because the school is bound to their state's Open Meeting Act and the PTO works "under the auspices of the Board of Education" (per their bylaws) they were concerned that they inadvertently violated that act.

I personally don't see it as a 'meeting' but rather as a managerial discussion to assist a committee chairman.

The most I would recommend the officer to do is the state at the general meeting that a discussion about xyz press release took place and the decision of the officers was to .... To even let on that it was a contentious issue or to intimate that the chairman needed them to step in would be, IMHO, treating said chairman with less than dignity and respect.

"The best we can do is lead with dignity and integrity and treat all of the members of our team with that same dignity and integrity."

That preceisely the point, I think.

I think many folks thought the meeting was to discuss the 'person' (without the person present) hence the gossip/clique image conjured up.

You dont meet in secret/unrecoreded sessions to discuss 'people' --you treat the person with respect and deal with them one on one, similar to your 6 pt outline on other threads.

I'm familiar with the folks involved with this issue so I won't address it directly. But after reading the posts here, I have to say I'm surprised with many of them. To everyone in favor of full disclosure, let me ask this:

Every time something comes up and the officers need to meet to discuss it, it should be fully disclosed to the general membership? I couldn't disagree more.

Why are we so quick to throw around the 'clique' insult when a group of people work together to resolve an issue? Isn't that the role of a leadership team? If they weren't there providing that leadership then the chairman would be on here posting "Help! The Exeuctive Officers are a clique. I'm a new member, need some help and they're just ignoring me...." Or, "I made a mistake and they threw it in my face in front of everyone...."

We all know that when you're a parent group leader you can't please everyone, you're the first one blamed when something goes wrong and it's often a thankless job. The best we can do is lead with dignity and integrity and treat all of the members of our team with that same dignity and integrity.

I agree with JHB - let bylaws, best practices and ethics guide the process.

"Open Meetings" acts are created by state law. But the basic premise is that a governmental body must excercise its power in a properly called meeting.

So this generally applies to elected officials, governing commissions, school boards, etc. It isn't intended to mean every meeting of a public entity and certainly not independent organizations like PTOs. So I don't think "Open Meeting" laws comes into this at all.

Your organization's bylaws, as well as ethics and best practices are what should guide you.

"She was not providing fundraising information that the president thought should be public knowledge"

Keyword THOUGHT. Why is there any doubt?

Why would anything related to fundraising be kept secret in a parent group of a public school, run by the parents, for the parents and kids and school?

And, doesnt the president know everything about the fundraising, cant the presdident make the infos public him/herself? Is the chairpeson withholding infos from his/her own leaders?? That would seem absurd to say the least.

In any event, this is about the JOB the chariperson is doing (or not doing to description).

This is not about the PERSON.

You really need to separate the two or you will have a hornets nest in the making, to say the least.