Under current board rules there are no explicit roles, responsibilities or special voting privileges given to the executive committee or officers - only the chair. Is this consistent with the nature and purpose of Robert's Rules? Are there standard rules of executive committee structure? Otherwise it seems little for the executive committee to do.

And would a change of rules approved by the entire board membership that permits the chair to change committee structure only with the approval of the majority of the executive committee be more consistent with RONR?

Secondly, since the board chair appoints committee chairs, under our rules the chair can remove a committee chair without cause or explanation to the committee chair, executive committee or the other elected officers. Is this consistent with RONR generally? Are there standard rules of order regarding this issue? - Anon., Nov. 26, 1999

A: A parliamentary authority (such as RONR) is the most subordinate of an organization's governing documents. It's the bylaws that give an organization its own character by specifying such things as its object, membership, officers, meetings and board.

A board usually has the authority of the organization to conduct business between membership meetings; and an executive committee of a board usually has the authority of the board to conduct business between board meetings.

RONR says of the executive committee of a board (see p. 475):

• It may exist only if the bylaws provide for it.
• It has all or much of the authority of the board between board meetings, but it cannot overrule the board.
• Its membership is usually specified in the bylaws. The board cannot appoint the membership unless the bylaws allow it.
• There should be few members.
• If there's an executive secretary, he should be appointed by the organization, or at least by the board.