Setemu

My understanding form discussions elsewhere on this board is that subcommittees are essentially committees of committees, and as such the same rules apply for subcommittees as committees unless otherwise specified. So, am I correct that the assumed method of appointment, given only the above language (perhaps with some tweaking to your point) and no bylaw language regarding appointments, would be the same as for committees: "by unanimous consent or by majority vote at the time the committee is appointed" (p. 492, ll. 13-17)? If the bylaws have language regarding the method of committee appointments, yet no explicit language regarding the method of appointment in subcommittees, would your interpretation be that that is also the method to appoint subcommittees?

RONR states "Subcommittees must consist of members of the committee, except when otherwise authorized by the society in cases where the committee is appointed to take action that requires the assistance of others" (p. 497, ll. 16-19). If an assembly changed their bylaws regarding subcommittee membership to only read "Subcommittees may consist of assembly members who are not on the committee," does that eliminate the requirement that nonmembers of the parent committee must be authorized? It seems to me that the second clause of the RONR statement above might still be in effect, and the amended bylaw can be read to merely affirm what RONR states: that subcommittees may consist of members not of the parent committee.....[if they are authorized by the assembly].

Does the chair make this declaration and order, and is it considered a ruling; or, does the assembly vote on it? If it is the assembly, is it a majority vote? Majority in negative vote?

1) I understand that, as such, the assembly may countermand the actions, if it so chooses. Is it only the assembly that can take action or can the parent committee also take action regarding actions of its subcommittee exceeding its authority? 2) Am I correct that a committee cannot authorize its subcommittee to make recommendations or to carry out actions it itself is not authorized by the assembly to make or cary out, unless the assembly authorizes those additional charges? 3) The parliamentarian is responsible for "call[ing] the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm" (p. 466., ll. 15-17). I've always thought of this responsibility being contained within the proceedings of assembly meetings itself. Do any of the issues under discussion here fall under this duty of the parliamentarian? Thank you for answering these additional questions. I'd like to make sure I have provisional answers prepared on these, and have some sense of what kinds of follow up questions I might ask, before I start formally answering questions from assembly members.

I wondered if that would be the case, but then why is there a rule prohibiting non-members of the parent committee from being on its subcommittee? Is there any significant parliamentary effect that follows from the appointment of non-members to the committee, especially considering they typically only give recommendations, or is the rule there to "merely" to ensure consistency with all the other rules regarding committee membership vis-a-vis the parent body (committees must be comprised of members of the assembly, so subcommittees must be comprised of members of the parent committee)? Edited to add: I need to amend my answer to Mr. Martin above in light of new information. This subcommittee is a standing subcommittee, and from what I have been able to gather, it has been acting autonomously (carrying out activities not authorized by the assembly and not reporting to its parent committee).

No. I had thought it was, but I was confusing the recommendation for action with an action. The parent committee is a standing committee charged with drafting policy recommendations on a specific array of subjects, and its subcommittee was charged with drafting a recommendation on one specific policy. That subcommittee policy draft was recommended to the parent committee, the parent committee recommended it to the assembly, and the assembly adopted it---all with non-members of the parent committee on the subcommittee.

Here are the textual reference points I am working with: - "The motion to ratify...is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot be valid until approved by the assembly" (p. 124, ll. 24-27), and it can be applied in instances where "action [is] taken by...subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority..." (p. 124, ll. 34-35). - "Subcommittees must consist of members of the committee, except when otherwise authorized by the society in cases where the committee is appointed to take action that requires the assistance of others” (p. 497, ll. 16-19).

Thank you.

A standing committee may make a recommendation to the assembly of its own initiative (p. 514). Situation: standing committee (A) is charged with making policy recommendations to the assembly regarding subject X. There are no assembly rules regarding automatic referral on any subject. An assembly member, who is not a member of committee (A), contacts the chair (or any) member of this committee with a suggestion for a policy amendment on subject x, in the hopes the committee will recommend the amendment to the assembly. The chair of the committee (or other committee member) brings the item before the committee on behalf of the assembly member. The amendment is adopted for the committee report and a motion to amend is recommended in the report to the assembly. Questions: 1) Is committee (A) obligated to consider the issue brought by the assembly member, given the issue is in the purview of the committee's charges? (my guess: no) 2) May committee (A) consider an issue brought to the attention of one it's members it by an individual assembly member, if one or more committee members wishes to do so? (my guess: yes). On the one hand this seems to circumvent the majority requirement to commit an item to committee, but on the other hand this is a standing committee charged with considering issues on the subject. 3) If committee (A) member hears a comment during Good of the Order regarding a concern with policy in question--a policy under the purview of committee (A)--is it allowable for that committee (A) member to then bring up the issue for consideration and possibly recommendation in committee (A)'s next meeting without any discussion with the member who brought up the concern during Good of the Order? (my guess: yes) 4) Do any of these answers change if the committee is given standing powers to act on behalf of the assembly on matters pertaining to the policy in question?

I don't know much about that history or about the House rules, but a quick peek at the US House's Office of the Clerk led me to this description of the Committee of the Whole: "The House resolves itself into a new Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill" (emphasis added). That description is consistent with the NP article you referred me to, JJ, which uses as an example a pending potential action of the assembly that is referred to Committee of the Whole. That's a point I hadn't thought of, although in such a case is seems to me the question of whether to consider a question informally, as one of the devices described on p. 530, isn't a question at all any more given informal consideration is always already allowed in a small board (a motion to consider a question informally wouldn't make sense in a small board...would it?). If I understand your second point, then, if a small assembly wished to have what we have been calling a "subject-only" discussion, which they could not do by informal consideration (which requires a pending main motion), they would move into committee of the whole to have the subject-only discussion. Generally speaking, although RONR states that each of the devices on p. 530 is "best suited" for a particular size of assembly, nothing in RONR precludes any assembly of any size from using any or all of those three devices in a given meeting. Right? There is that, indeed, and I agree it is an important fact to consider if an assembly, including mine, wishes to use Good of the Order for such purposes. I understand your reasoning, Mr. Martin, and I will keep it in mind when I encounter this situation again. Also, let me say again I very much I appreciate the time you and others have provided in helping me think through this. I am a novice at this, and I am also deeply interested the logic and intent behind the rules, specifically and generally, so I can learn to best interpret the text in cases where the text's guidance is not explicit, and this conversation has helped me understand some of nuances of the text that were not readily apparent to me (maybe an official opinion is in order--pun intended--as an easy reference for us newbies?). First round is on me if I ever make an NAP conference and bump into any of you all. :-)

Wait...the main motion used to Commit would be the motion to Commit itself? I think my head just exploded. :-) It seems to me odd that RONR would intend to allow this maneuver for an assembly of 200 people while at the same time precluding it for a small group of 10.

In my particular case, even with a pending motion, it would not seem to be advised because I am working with a large assembly, and RONR specifically states that (a) committee of the whole is suited for large assemblies and (b) informal consideration is suited for small assemblies (p. 530, V. 33). This does make me wonder, though, for parallelism, that if a pending pending motion is required for informal consideration that it must also be required for committee of the whole, as these appear to be three devices (committee of the whole, quasi-committee of the whole, and informal consideration) that operate under the same assumptions regarding the parliamentary situation to which they are intended, except that each has slightly different modifications for the rules regarding the conduct during the use of the device depending on size (and not necessarily what is happening in the assembly when the device is moved, i.e. whether or not there is a pending motion).

So, it sounds to me that, generally, as they are described in RONR, 1) Good of the Order is intended for brief informal observations and comments, but that using this as a format for subject-only informal discussion is not precluded by the rules; 2) Committee of the Whole is generally intended as a device for the consideration of a question being handled in the assembly that might be better suited to be handled in conditions approximating a committee, but that using this format for subject-only informal discussion is not precluded by the rules; 3) and considering the aforementioned and that RONR does not anticipate a large assembly wanting to have regular subject-only informal discussions, both Good of the Order and Committee of the Whole options are available to the assembly for subject-only informal discussion, with RONR giving no specific preference to either, and that how to best proceed on such a matter in a given situation is ultimately up to the assembly. Correct?

The assembly wishes to discuss a subject with no motion pending at least once in each of approximately 25-33% of the meetings, and the assembly is >100 members. Perhaps this is a matter of interpretive disagreement, or its a theoretical debate and this isn't the place for it, or maybe it's merely my novice reading of RONR and maybe there is not much more to say on this topic except that, but my question with this passage would be, what matter is being handled in this example? That is, is a general discussion of a subject a matter to be "handled"? The point here is only to say (a) that examples and discussion in the section of RONR regarding committees generally and Committee of the Whole seem to assume that something specific beyond merely "discussion of [subject x]" was referred to or instructed of the Committee of the Whole, and (b) that if there is this other use of the committee of the whole for an assembly--to formally discuss a subject generally and without any specific instructions--that this is a powerful use of the device that deserves at least some attention in the new edition, as it is not readily apparent in the language of the 11th edition. To wit (and, if anything, perhaps this just communicates how a novice might (mis)read the text): when describing the task of committees generally, the 11th ed. says it is "to consider, investigate, or take action on certain matters..."(p. 489, II. 22-24), and I've had have a hard time understanding what it would mean for a committee to consider a subject without specifying what, exactly, a committee is supposed to consider about that subject; although, I think I might be a little clearer on that now. Regarding Committee of the Whole, the description is as follows: "In large assemblies, the use of the committee of the whole is a convenient method of considering a question [without limit of number of times of debate]" (p. 489-90). Elsewhere it reads, "The parliamentary steps in making use of committee of the whole are essentially the same as those involved in referring a subject to an ordinary committee. The assembly goes into committee of the whole (which is equivalent to voting to refer the matter to the committee)...the committee considers the referred matter, adopts a report to be made to the assembly, then votes to 'rise and report'. Finally, the committee chairman presents the report and the assembly considers the committees recommendations--all as in the case of an ordinary committee" (p. 531, IV. 22-3). These descriptions do not appear to me to be inclusive of other uses of committee of the whole as you and others have suggested, except with the exception that later in the section on Committee of the Whole, a motion simply to rise (as opposed to "rise and report") is offered as an allowable motion (p. 533, II. 7). Nonetheless, what seems to be the case is that the use of the committee of the whole in the way you describe is not explicitly precluded by the rules. I very much appreciate you and others taking the time to describe how Committee of the Whole has this other use, and I can now advise with this option in mind.

Thank you for your time. While on the one hand I understand the rules may permit not prohibit this use, on the other hand do the rules necessary conflict with a chair's ruling that "a motion to move into committee of the whole without a referred question or specific instructions is out of order"? Am I correct that the committee nonetheless has to provide a report, even though there was no specific direction given to the discussion? Am I also correct that, even without specific instructions or referred question, the committee may adopt recommendations, for example, to instruct the committee further regarding this policy? Am I correct that a quorum of members is not required for the hearing but a quorum of the committee is? I appreciate you offering this suggestion. I am reluctant to use the passage on p. 299 to justify an open discussion, though, because as it appears to me there, from the examples provided in that passage, that the permission requested is for a member to address remarks or give a presentation--or, more broadly, that there is a single member wishing to address the assembly at some length, without a pending motion or leading to a motion, but not to open up an unstructured discussion, possibly including scores of members rising an indefinite number of times to speak the same. It also appears that this is for extenuating circumstances and not intended to be relied upon regularly. If an open discussion more unstructured than Committee of the Whole were to be sought, it would seem more like a motion to insert Good of the Order in the middle of reports, which would require 2/3 to suspend rules interfering with moving Good of the Oder to the next item of business (following the report in question and skipping over, temporarily, general orders and new business).

I do recall reading that now that you point it out, and I think that is where I am getting my reading of RONR. Specifically in that article, the example of how the CoW can discuss the issue without a pending main motion is of the form that "to investigate the possibility of creating a scholarship...", in other words, in the form provided in that article, the Committee of the Whole must be directed at some potential activity of the assembly as a whole, not just a general discussion about a topic. Case 1: a standing committee with standing powers to create and effect policies of type A creates such a policy. Said policy is reported to the assembly. An assembly member wants to discuss the policy, likely because she is unhappy with it, wish to express said dissatisfaction, and wants to see if others in the assembly are also dissatisfied with it. Case 2: a standing committee with standing powers to make policy recommendations of type B to the assembly reports to the assembly on the progress of a draft of such a policy (it is unknown whether this question originated in committee or was referred to it). The reporting member wishes to have a format like a hearing, wherein feedback is sought but not in the formal way of a CoW report, as the committee does not want to risk the assembly, at that stage in the drafting, to take ownership of the draft. edited to add: in both of these cases, there is a report. As I understand it, questions of fact are allowed after the delivery of a report, but comments generally are not allowed unless they are going to lead to a motion. In both of the above cases, members wish to open up a forum for comments on the reports without reference to any pending motion or to a consideration of potential action of the assembly.

So long as there is quorum, I don't think RONR prohibits this, especially given "the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures...at this point [GOTO]" (p. 362, II. 14-19).

"Committee of the whole is under the rules of the assembly" except that the only motions adopt (in the report), amend (items in the report), rise and report, and a few incidental motions. (p. 533) are allowed, and it "enables the full assembly to give detailed consideration to a matter under freedom approximating those of a committee" (p. 529, III, 34-35, emphasis added), by removing only the limit of debate of number of times (p. 529-530, III. 35 - I. 5). I guess the question on which much of this pivots is whether or not the characteristic activity of a committee that "informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending" (p. 488) is also allowed in Committee of the Whole, and given what I cited above, and that there are other characteristics of a committee that I understand to be not allowed in CoW, e.g., motions not needing to be seconded (ibid.), I am yet to be convinced that the characteristic activity of informal discussion while no motion is pending is allowed in CoW.

Thanks, Guest Zev. That clears it up for me. I will look into the idea of a special committee as a possible option, although I think in my particular situation the best course in most cases will be to find some other way (Good of the Order?) for that discussion to take place and then, if a desired motion comes out of the discussion, it can be made at the next meeting.

My understanding of committee of the whole is that it should generally be treated as any other committee, specifically in regards to it needing a question referred to it and that it report back to the assembly on that question. I also understand that committees generally may be instructed to investigate or research a specific topic for the (sole?) purpose of providing a recommendation. My questions are this: 1) Does the question referred to CoW need to be pending in the assembly, or am I correct that a single motion can propose both the motion and that it be referred to CoW? 2) Can a general subject be referred to CoW for discussion without any pending motion, for example, "I move to refer the subject of our training practices (otherwise not specified) to a committee of the whole" in order to initiate general discussion on the topic? (While I understand that CoW is a device primarily meant to remove limits of debate, I have some members that want to use it as a means of allowing discussion on a specific subject yet without a pending motion). 3) Can a standing or special committee recommend in their report, and reporting member move, that question referred to them now be referred to CoW?

Yes. I had temporarily confused being "in the minutes" with being "attached to the minutes."

Edited to add: Now I see it. Disregard (I would delete this post if I could). The chair stated the report can be included in the next minutes, because it was submitted too late to be included in the minutes of the meeting in which the report was delivered. I assume the meeting under discussion has already passed (it was the "last meeting"), and I believe it reasonable therefore to assume that the report was not allowed into the minutes of the meeting in question as the member asking for it to be so was called out of order for that request; so, I am advising that the member called out of order (edited to add: may move at the next meeting) to ASPA to have it included in the previous minutes. Would you advise against this?

Also, in the case where minutes are approved and an "error or material omission" is "reasonable established after their approval," the minutes can be amended after they are adopted by Amend Something Previously Adopted (2/3-vote, or majority with notice, or majority of entire membership, or unanimous consent) (p. 475).

Mr. Coronite is correct, and, while I cannot say how directly it might apply in this situation, it sounds like generally it might be worth keeping in the following in mind, too: RONR states "the minutes should never reflect the secretary's opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done" (p. 486, III.18-20).

Thank you all. I have enough understanding now to confidently advise on the questions before me.