PTO Today

We have just had elections, and we had a teacher to run against her own room mother for an executive officer position. To top things off, no one knew in advance. The only people that knew were the nominating committee, which were all school staff members. I would appreciate some feedback on this. It has upset the mother, and the current board. We really don't know what to do.

If she was voted in and it was done in accordance with your bylaws there isn't really much you can do, imo.

Tell the parent you appreciate her feelings but the PTO has moved in the direction they have in accordance with the bylaws. Give her some options on significant ways she can support the group and allow things to move forward without any more fanfare or chit chat. The more of that the more the spatter left by the injury. Really--2 good folks, 1 won....it's done.
d

So no one would have a problem with their child's teacher running against them even though the teacher had never been involved with PTO. Plus the teacher hasn't talked to the parent about the situation before or after the election.

Oh trust me... personally I would have a HUGE problem with it. But my personal problem with the situation and the realities of what is possible based on the by-laws, etc. are two different things.

My initial question when first reading the post was "why is the nominating committee made up of school staff?" Past trying to change that, which may be a bylaws item as well though, if rules have been followed there isn't much that can be done. The mom has to suck it up, be a good sport, support the school as she feels is appropriate and move towards the future. Her kids are at the school so her causing issue over it won't be productive for anyone. And if this came about due to something underhanded that the bylaws allow through default then work on changing the bylaws. Making an issue of it though will do nothing but stand the potential of hurting the kids and causing uproar with them. Which doesn't show much better imo.

Also, the assumption appears as though it is being made that the teacher did something purposely underhanded by running against her own room mom. That may not be the case at all. The teacher may have had a conversation with the mom that she based her decision on for the better of the students, etc. There are always 2 sides to the story and only one side seems to be voiced at this time. If it was done for under handed reasons then the teacher will probably pay for it in the end... I'm sure finding future room moms won't be easy. But, if it was done for a good, valid reason, then this may be the best thing in the end. One of the largest hangups doesn't seem to be that she ran at the last minute but that she ran against her own room mom. That could have happened no matter when she tossed in her nomination... would the reaction have been as negative then?

Exactly--the process is what is key here and is there exactly to ensure that feelings don't come into play. I'd be surprised if that scenario came to pass in our school but if it did, I'd work hard to get over it.

I agree with diff. If things were handled in accordance with your Bylaws then that is it. You now have a situation that can't be changed and you need to move forward.

Look at it from the teachers point of view...

Maybe this teacher really wants to get involved and wanted this position. Knowing that it was either being held or desired by the room mom created a situation that was difficult for the teacher. If she approached the room mom before hand it may have caused ill feelings. At this point it may be obvious to the teacher that there are ill feelings, so the teacher is staying away from the situation.

My problem would be more from this whole Nominating Committee issue...

IMO, the odea of a Nominating Committee is bad. Maybe it works for some groups, but I've read much negative comments about it. My group does not have a Nominating Committee. Pretty much any member of the PTO (which means any parent or staff member) can run for any position. I send out a notice to the entire school a few weeks prior to the Election meeting. It is also mentioned in the newsletter and in the morning announcements. So far it has never been an issue. At the meeting I send a form around indicating who is running for which positions, what positions are not filled and anyone can write their name in for any position, including President.

I believe that this process provides a better relationship within the group as people tend to talk about what's available, what they want to take on, etc.

The idea that only staff members selected who was running for what positions bothers me. I have always felt that the parents need to maintain the major positions within a group such as a PTO. Maybe not all oif these positions, but definitely the leadership ones. If a staff members became Presidenr or V.P. then there may be conflicts of interest which are not in the interest of the group or the children. So again the idea that the nominating committee is 100% teachers is not a good idea.

Maybe if you let us know which position we can provide more insight.

Regards,
PresidentJim

You do not know how much I appreciate the feedback. We have been debating over this situation for over a week now. The position was for Treasure. Aside from the parents feelings, which she now doesn't trust the teacher. We have the issue of two staff members can sign the checks, and how does the board deal with the conflict of interest such as voting on how much to give to teachers (we alot a certain amount in our budget for teacher support) and the issue with teacher appreciation week.

The election process is also an issue. Our by laws state that the slate is to be announced at the montly meeting prior to the election (last) PTO meeting. At that time, nominations can be announced from the floor. At the end of that meeting, everyone would know who was running for what. However, earlier this year the board (membership was allowed to vote on this and it passed) changed the monthly meetings to quarterly meetings. So there wasn't a meeting for the nominees to be presented. I don't the election issue was thought about when we changed to quarterly meetings.

The principal was one of the staff members on the nomination committee, and the some of the parents feel that when the teacher put in for the treasure position against her own room mother it should have at least a spark of "have you talked to her" or do I need to speak with the current board about this and let them handle talking with her. Yet, the current board was not even notified of the teacher running.

This will probably not be made into a big issue, we are just now trying to learn from the issue. We want to change the by-laws to correct it, but we don't know how to go about it. Parent involvement is a big issue in our school, and this looks like (to some) that a non involve teacher railroaded a very involved parent.

Wow, busy, I would say the problem is definitely the process and not the people. Bylaws revisions could help prevent things like this in the future.

I agree that it's bothersome to have only staff members on the nominating committee. I think it should be a relatively equal number of staff and parents.

I've heard of other groups using a nominations committee like yours but that seems to take all of the power away from the greater community and puts in all in the hands of four or five people. How can that be a fair process and a representative government? What is the point of even having elections if the committee says, "OK, these are the candidates we selected for you. Go ahead and vote them in"? If there isn't a choice between candidates then the voters essentially don't have a vote.

I was on a team that used a 'nominations committee' a little more loosely. The purpose of the committee was to seek out a diverse group of candidates and present the slate at a regular meeting at least 30 days before the elections meeting and also via newsletter and a written announcement out to parents and staff. Here's what the bylaws had to say about it.

[U]Section 6 - Candidate Slate[/U]

Prior to the April meeting, the President shall appoint a Nominations Committee of three to five non-officer members whose duty shall be to present a slate of candidates for the succeeding year. The goal of the Nominations Committee should be to actively seek a diverse representation of the membership to the organization.

[U]Section 7 - Candidate Consent[/U]
The Nominations Committee must obtain the consent of each proposed candidate.

[U]Section 8 - Slate Presentation[/U]
The slate of candidates shall be published in the school newsletter no less than 14 days but preferably 30 days prior to election.

[U]Section 9 – Election[/U]
Membership shall vote on the slate of candidates at a meeting held during the calendar school year and prior to June 1st. The election meeting will be published at the same time as the slate of candidates. Written ballot voting is required. A majority vote of those members present determines those elected. No vote may be cast by proxy. A tie shall be broken by the drawing of lots.

__________________
“Some people come into our lives and quickly go. Some stay for awhile and leave footprints on our hearts. And we are never, ever the same.”

My only worry with this situation is how you mention that there are two signers for checks on the staff. Now that may not be a real issue, depending on how things are approved...

Assuming that funds are controlled overall by the group's President, and that the President is not a staff member, then you may be ok. What I mean by this is that the Principal can't (by the rules anyway) just go to the Treasurer/Teacher and say write me a check for whatever. I would suggest that you make it standard that before any checks are written that the President "sign-off" on it. As long as control is maintained everything should be ok...

Good luck,
PresidentJim