Special rules of order of committees

[Sean Hunt]

Is a special rule of order a committee---passed by its parent assembly---a special rule of order of that assembly or a standing rule? Does this change if the rule is one that applies to all committees rather than to a specific committee?

[Rev Ed]

I may be wrong here, but if the parent group creates a special rule of order for a Committee, then the rule of order applies only to the Committee.

[Gary c Tesser]

(Sean, is there a word or two missing from the question, towards the beginning?)

[Dan Honemann]

Is a special rule of order a committee---passed by its parent assembly---a special rule of order of that assembly or a standing rule? Does this change if the rule is one that applies to all committees rather than to a specific committee?

 

Sean, I think it will help if you provide an example or two of exactly what kind of rule you have in mind.

[Sean Hunt]

Suppose an assembly wishes to permit the motion for the Previous Question to be made at its committees, because of a number of long-winded members.

 

A member moves "that the Previous Question can be moved in all committees."

 

Is this a special rule of order of the assembly, and therefore subject to the notice/vote requirements of a special rule of order?

 

What if the member instead moves "that the Previous Question can be moved in the Nominating Committee"?

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe that would be a special rule of order in either case.

[George Mervosh]

Since the 10 minute time limit per speech applies in the committee as well, and, since the footnote on p. 500 allows the chair to act in cases of abuse when there isn't the time or ability to notify the superior body, is a special rule of order necessary or proper?

[Sean Hunt]

Since the 10 minute time limit per speech applies in the committee as well, and, since the footnote on p. 500 allows the chair to act in cases of abuse when there isn't the time or ability to notify the superior body, is a special rule of order necessary or proper?

 

There is, hypothetically, at least one member of the opinion that it is a good idea, and the rule is certainly in order, whether or not it is necessary. You can substitute for my proposed rule for any other rule that may be more necessary.

[Josh Martin]

I believe that would be a special rule of order in either case.

 

Gary, would that still be your opinion if the rule in question was applied only to one or more committees which were established by a standing rule?

[Guest Nancy N.]

I think I'm seeing part of the question:  the proposal, in a (superior) assembly, to impose a rule of order in a subordinate committee does not propose a rule of order on that superior assembly itself:  is that proposal, then, substantive, not procedural?

[Guest Nnacy N.]

Uh oh, I have crossixed with Josh again.

[Gary Novosielski]

Gary, would that still be your opinion if the rule in question was applied only to one or more committees which were established by a standing rule?

It probably would,  but you might be able to talk me out of it.

[Dan Honemann]

Gary, would that still be your opinion if the rule in question was applied only to one or more committees which were established by a standing rule?

 

I'm inclined to agree that instructions of this sort to a committee, whether included in the motion to Commit (p.172, ll. 5-14) or in subsequently adopted instructions (p. 177, ll. 13-17), require only a majority vote.

 

For another example, I think that a majority vote is all that is required to give a committee the instruction referred to on page 501, lines 2-6.

[Bruce Lages]

I also thought this particular example might fall into the category of instructions given to the committee. But if the intent was for this policy to have a continuing effect for one or more committees, I suspect it would be adopted as a special rule of order by the assembly with specific application to committees.

[Dan Honemann]

I also thought this particular example might fall into the category of instructions given to the committee. But if the intent was for this policy to have a continuing effect for one or more committees, I suspect it would be adopted as a special rule of order by the assembly with specific application to committees.

 

I would not draw this sort of distinction, mostly because I don't understand it. The rule is, of course, to have continuing effect for the committee or committees to which it applies.

[Bruce Lages]

I was thinking of the situation where the assembly would like the policy in question to always apply to any special committees that may be created, so that it would not have to be repeated in the instructions for each committee.

[George Mervosh]

I was thinking of the situation where the assembly would like the policy in question to always apply to any special committees that may be created, so that it would not have to be repeated in the instructions for each committee.

 

But does it need to be adopted by the vote requirement to adopt a special rule of order for it to be an ongoing instruction to all committees, present and future, seems to be the question.  I'm not sure it does.  The rules in the book seem to give the parent body great power and ease in giving committees instructions.

[Dan Honemann]

I was thinking of the situation where the assembly would like the policy in question to always apply to any special committees that may be created, so that it would not have to be repeated in the instructions for each committee.

 

This, then, seems to be creating a rule applicable to the assembly itself, which I agree is a different thing altogether.

[Sean Hunt]

This, then, seems to be creating a rule applicable to the assembly itself, which I agree is a different thing altogether.

 

Different enough to warrant a higher vote threshold?

 

Also, in regards to the early situation, where it applies only to a single standing committee, does this at all change if the committee has any authority which must be granted by special rule of order (such as business automatically being referred to it, or the power to investigate something of its own initiative)?

[Dan Honemann]

Different enough to warrant a higher vote threshold?

 

Yes, I would think so.

 

 

Also, in regards to the early situation, where it applies only to a single standing committee, does this at all change if the committee has any authority which must be granted by special rule of order (such as business automatically being referred to it, or the power to investigate something of its own initiative)?

 

No, although if the instruction is included in a motion or resolution creating one of the committees described on page 491, lines 13-19, then it obviously will require either previous notice and a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption.

[Sean Hunt]

Thank you very much for the insights!

 

Time to get back to figuring out how to divide "special rules of order" and "standing rules" in my student union...

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you very much for the insights!

 

Time to get back to figuring out how to divide "special rules of order" and "standing rules" in my student union...

 

You are entirely welcome, but I suppose I should hasten to add that the opinions I have expressed are my own, and not necessarily those of any other member of the authorship team. I have not discussed my responses with any of them, and I have no recollection of having discussed these issues with any of them at any time in the past.

[Gary Novosielski]

You forgot to disclaim any precognition of

any future meetings with any of them on

this subject.

[Dan Honemann]

You forgot to disclaim any precognition of

any future meetings with any of them on

this subject.

 

If I knew what it was I'd disclaim it.

[Burke Balch]

Since reference has been made to other members of the authorship team, for whatever it is worth this member of that body agrees entirely with Dan Honemann's analysis, which if I understand it correctly may be summarized as follows:

1. Since an assembly can give instructions to one or more of its committees by majority vote, it only requires such a vote to authorize a committee (or all existing committees) to employ the Previous Question (or in different specified ways to vary from what otherwise would be the default parliamentary rules governing consideration of matters in committees). 

2. If, however, a rule is proposed, varying the extant parliamentary rules, that applies to the assembly, such as that all committees of the assembly (including any to be created in the future) are authorized to employ the Previous Question, such a rule is a special rule of order and for adoption requires either (a) previous notice and a 2/3 vote or ( b ) a vote of a majority of the entire membership of the assembly.

3. This analysis is equally applicable whether or not the committee being instructed that it may employ the Previous Question has any authority which must be granted by special rule of order (such as business automatically being referred to it, or the power to investigate something of its own initiative)  -- although if the same motion grants it authority which must be granted by special rule of order and authorizes it to employ the Previous Question, then obviously the higher vote/notice required for a special rule of order is required to adopt that undivided motion.