What a wonderful dilemna to have- I think in my 15 yrs PTA/PTO experience -my wife and I have been the only couple in it or on the board

I agree as long as no money is not being handled just by the two (better to have those checks and balances even if both are "Honest Abe's") -

I'd be thrilled to have more couples (ie more Dads and Moms) involved.

As for the 2 of 7- hopefully 2 can't persuade or finagle (sp?) bad decisons out of the other 5 - checks and balances

and I like stargazerlilly's use /practice for the bank acct issues-- more smart Midwest thinking (I'm a fellow born Hooiser here in Cali from Indy)

I'm the President of our PTO and my husband is the Treasurer. We have low involvement so for our school it is almost us or nothing! We have avoided the conflict of interest in that I am not on the bank account and the principals sign all of the checks. We are both very involved in our kids schooling and we try to encourage lots of spouses to get involved with the PTO....it gives us something to be interested in together and another bond!

I don't think it's a problem. They aren't handling money together. If the mom's involved-the dad's involved and they're working for the kids it counts as family time and still serves the PTO. I think it's great.

Our bylaws prohibit spouses/relatives from handling money (alone) or being the sole signors of the checks. My wife (a teacher) is a part of PTO, but she doesn's sit on the board. We thought it was the right thing to do.

it would concern me if it were Pres and Treasurer spouse team, but not what you describe.


we have a clause that disallows spouses (or even people living in same household) from both holding board positions. its a good policy to have.

Is this "power couple" the next Bill and Hillary or are they just both the kinds of folks who like to be involved with their kids? I guess I don't see this as any different than two best friends who lock up the president and vp spots and then band together on every issue.

Probably my only concern would be if they could disagree and discuss opposing ideas as any two officers would be expected to without spatting like spouses. They should be able to express two independent views and vote accordingly.

Like d says, unopposed candidates aren't a shoe in if you have provisions that allow a yes/no vote. And I agree with her that two of seven votes doesn't give them a monopoly.