Setemu

Thanks. Both of those answers help me gain clarity on a particular parliamentary situation I am dealing with.

RONR states that nonmembers may be appointed to a committee, "even to the position of committee chairman" (pp., 492-493), but I cannot find any discussion regarding the rights of those members in committee. I understand that nonmembers do not have the right to speak or vote in assembly meetings, but it would seem difficult for a nonmember committee chair to break a vote in committee if he or she does not have the right to vote in committee, even if not in assembly. So, my question is this: if an assembly nonmember is appointed to a committee, to any or no particular position, does that assembly nonmember have the same rights, as a member of that committee, as assembly members who are also members on that committee?

Thank you.

Mr. Martin, yes, the organizational structure is complicated, and we may need to an opinion or two from a PRP at some point(s) in the future. I certainly keep that in the back of my mind. Mr. Brown, it is not like a board or directors or the DNC or RNC, it is more garden variety subordinate committee of an assembly. To all of you, I think your combined contributions have cleared this up, and I thank you: the committee is accountable to its parent assembly for the charges given directly to said committees subcommittees by the committee's parent assembly.

Thank you all for clearing that up; it appears I was quite confused, and this was the language that confused me: "A distinction between a board and a committee must be briefly stated...A board of any size is a form of assembly as just explained. Committees, on the other hand, are bodies that are...subordinate instruments of an assembly or of an assembly or are accountable to a higher authority in some way not characteristic of an assembly" (RONR, p. 9, III. 22-28, emphasis added). The emphasized phrase indicated to me that boards are not subordinate instruments of an assembly. However, I now see that I missed a line just above it on the same page: "A board within an organized society..is an instrumentality of a society's full assembly, to which it is subordinate" (II. 14-17, emphasis added). So, if an organized society has regular meetings (more often than quarterly), and it also has some of its committees (and no boards) authorized in the bylaws to carry out certain activities in between meetings and without referral (but not precluding referral) from the assembly, these committees can (perhaps not necessarily, though, depending on the particulars of the assembly?) essentially be treated as boards within an organized society, in so far as that committee is authorized to act in between meetings and that, also being subordinate to the assembly, it can be further instructed by the assembly or have its actions countermanded by the assembly. Yes? When you say, Mr. Brown, "the bylaws grant the board exclusive jurisdiction" I assume this must be expressly written in the bylaws; and, where it is not, such exclusivity may not be assumed.

If a subcommittee is listed in the by-laws has having a specific charge not otherwise specified in the description of the parent committee, is that charge then also a charge of the parent committee? For example, there are five subcommittees of the same parent committee in a large political organization. Each subcommittee is charged with determining and representing the interests of its assigned caucus within the organization. The parent committee, while carrying out its by-law authorized activity, fails to represent the interests of two of the five caucuses in a section of the organization's platform. Is there a case to be made that the parent committee failed to fulfill its charges by way of charges assigned to its subcommittees? Does the caucus have any recourse against the parent committee?

1) I had mentioned boards, because RONR takes a deliberate aside to make a distinction between boards and committees, saying that a board is an assembly onto itself and that an assembly a committee is a "subordinate instrument" of the assembly (RONR, p. 9, III. 22-28). The topography of that distinction isn't entirely clear to me, but it seems to say that while the board may act for a society (p. 482, III. 16-21), a board is not subordinate to the assembly, which then leads me to ask the question, what does it then mean for a committee to be subordinate to an assembly, if there is no distinction in how the assembly may direct the activities of a committee authorized in the bylaws from those of similarly authorized activities of a board? Is it that committees can have questions referred to it by the assembly and boards cannot? 2) So, so just to be clear, it sounds like a committee, once authorized to carry out specific activities in the bylaws, is only accountable to the assembly regarding those activities by way of the assembly electing new members to the committee or amending the charges of the committee, unless, of course, there is a question of whether a committee is failing to fulfill its duties, acting in excess of its duties, or there is misconduct by any member(s) of the committee. I also assume this means that the assembly also cannot provide specific instructions to the committee regarding bylaw-authorized activities, as it might provide instructions with a referred question; it must amend the charges to specifically include these instructions. Yes?

Zev is correct.

A committee is charged with advising a non-profit organization's executive on the creation of policies regarding how the organization handles internal complaints. The executive currently effects the policy. The assembly wishes to change this so that the committee's charges are not merely to advise the executive on policy but rather to create and implement/effect policies around internal complaints itself. 1) Considering no conflict with superseding parliamentary authority or organizational policies, am I correct that the assembly may do this? 2) If this committee remains a committee and is not made a board, can the assembly take ownership over the creation of any one particular policy item, even if the committee is authorized in the by-laws to make and effect the policies in question itself? Would this take 2/3-vote?

Larry, I have the same document, recently acquired. I believe when it says "Check answers on page C-1" it is referring to the back of the Study Guide for the NAP Registration Exam (pp. 200-203). Roughly, page C-1 is p. 200 in the StudyGuide, C-2 is p. 201, C-3 is p. 202, and C-4 is p. 203. I'm guessing other references you mention are similarly unrevised references to the Study Guide. I am assuming the references that are B-1,2, etc correlate to those references bracketed after after each question in the Study Guide, which are references to pages in RONR 11th; and that pp. II, 1-2 refers to Part II of the Study Guide, with old, unrevised page numbers for where those questions are located in the Study Guide. For example, NOLA's reference to (pp. II, 1-2) would in fact be "pp. II, 9-10" in the Study Guide

Thank you. That is how I treated it the last time, and I wanted to make sure for near future reference I had it right. You all are of immense help to this novice parliamentarian.

That was my instinct as well. Here is a follow up question. RONR states, regarding the division of the question "Usually, though, little formality is involved in dividing a question, and it is arranged by unanimous consent" (p. 272). Let's say the chair allows the question to be divided on demand, and, after the first demand is made, a member raises an objection, wanting vote on whether the question should be divided (essentially wanting to make a motion Division of the Question), does the chair treat this as a point of order or put the question whether to divide on demand to a vote (or some other option)?

Whether or not a question can be divided at all or if it can be divided by demand seems to turn on the criteria of whether the a single question can be modified into two separate questions or if a series of independent resolutions/motions is offered. My question is this: what if a single motion is offered that is comprised of series of independent bullet points, can it be divided on demand, or must a motion Division of the Question be used? The Society Finance Committee recommends the assembly approve the following to increase revenue for the society: a. increasing dues by $10 b. consolidating regions X and Y c. changing the location of our annual meeting to St Louis. I recognize, of course, that the ideal situation is to encourage members to motions in a clearer format, but that is not always the case.

Okay. I think I understand: the idea on p. 515, lines 13-25 --that making a motion "to 'adopt the committee's recommendation(s)'...can lead to confusion as to the precise effect of the motion"-- only pertains to do with a situation in which a report contains recommendations that are not in the form of motions or resolutions. Thus, if the recommendations are in said form, it is in order for the reporting member to say, "On behalf of the committee I move to adopt all recommendations just read;" for the the chair to then state the question as "It has been moved and seconded [this is coming from a committee report, so no second is needed, must it be stated here?] to adopt all recommendations just read;" and for the series of recommendations to be considered and voted upon en masse, unless it is divided as appropriate. Thanks.

Our assembly has a habit of reporting members of committees moving "to adopt all the recommendations in the report." The report is submitted in writing prior to the meeting. I have found, true to RONR's discussion on the matter, that this has led to some confusion at times. This is particularly true considering the recommendations themselves are not always explicitly stated in the report (although they are intended). I would like to know how to advise the chair, in accordance with the rules, on how to improve/modify this practice for greater clarity of the motion being considered. After reading the sections I referenced in my original post, I was confused as to how best advise.

In a report of a committee's own initiative with multiple recommendations, does the chair, in stating the question, follow the same methods mentioned on pp.522-523? How does c) on p. 523 (allowing a motion to adopt all recommendations in the report) square with the advice on p. 515, lines 13-25, that making a motion "to 'adopt the committee's recommendation(s)'...can lead to confusion as to the precise effect of the motion"?

Thank you!

Am I correct to assume that in a permanent society that goes through an established order of business, a motion killed at one meeting can be renewed with the same exact working at the meeting immediately following (c.f. p. 83, lines 25-30; p.336, lines 6-9).

Let me try to clarify my thinking, fist by citing the passage spurring my question: "A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote" (p. 467, emphasis added). If the reason the member-parliamentarian has a duty not to make motions is for the sake of maintaining a position of impartiality, then why would this include the duty to refrain from making a Point of Order (other than it is technically a motion--which seem to lead to a tautology), considering a Point of Order is merely regarding a matter of a breach of rules, which moreover is a subject matter falling squarely within the primary purview of the the parliamentarian, instead of being about any partiality to a pending question before the assembly? One answer is that because raising a Point of Order can be advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question, and therefore the member-parliamentarian raising a Point of Order can be seen to be partial in raising a Point of Order on a pending question. However, if this is the case--that the reasoning behind refraining from making a Point of Order is to maintain impartiality, as is the reason provided by RONR--it seems unreasonable to expect the member-parliamentarian to be given the benefit of the doubt by the chair or the assembly when the parliamentarian points to "any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or otherwise do harm" (RONR, 466), given that doing so could indicate some partiality to the pending question. If the member-parliamentarian does have the benefit of the doubt to remain impartial on questions of order, then why not allow him/her to be able to raise a point of order except, again, for the seemingly tautological reasoning that a Point of Order is a motion.

Huh. I see that it is listed under "Incidental Motions" in the RONR, but it just seemed to me to be categorically different than all other motions given it is strictly about a breach of rules, and considering it didn't seem to fall under any motion listed on, p. T4. That said, I can see how raising a point of order might be strategically advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question.

Am I correct to assume, then, this also means that if the parliamentarian /is/ a member of the assembly s/he can raise a point of order or appeal? It seems that way given the member begins with all rights granted to any member of the assembly and then is restricted, once taking the position of parliamentarian, to only from making motions and debating, and to only voting during ballot vote. That would seem to leave all other member rights of the member-parliamentarian in place.

The page cited (p. 250, ll. 17-25) refers to an example on the timelines of points of order in which a chair is stating a question without a second, and this being the reason for a point of order being raised. I believe a better passage is p. 35, lines 4-8, including the double-asterisks footnote, the footnote also stating that motions in small boards or committees need not be seconded. It might also be noted by the OP that on p. 487 lines 26-28, a small board meeting is described as one where "not more than about a dozen members present."

As I understand it and generally speaking--and I would guess someone will jump in if I am incorrect--any question regarding whether or not a practice allowed by the bylaws violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as conceived in RONR , is not practically meaningful, considering, according to RONR itself, the bylaws supersede RONR as parliamentary authority in any case where the two conflict (RONR 11th, p. 16). The presiding officer enforces the procedural rules during the meeting, interpreting them as s/he must, always with the option available to put the question to the committee/assembly over which s/he is presiding at the time the interpretation is needed, if it is needed; and understanding always there exists the possibility that a member might raise a point of order or appeal a decision of the chair (this all assumes there is no by-law stating otherwise). See RONR 11th pp. 449-450. Whether or not the by-law needs to be amended is a matter for the assembly itself, and it should also be noted that "each society decides for itself the meaning of its by-laws" (p. 588); so, I would guess there is not a whole lot any of us here can help you with on this matter. Regardless, you might see if pp. 588-589 of RONR 11th is of any help. As for the scenario, I am still a bit unclear. Does Ms. Smith serve as both primary and alternate for the same committee?

I don't know if this helps with your particular situation, Caryn, but it might be worth noting that "one person, one vote" is considered a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as is limiting the right to vote to only members of the assembly and only those members present at the meeting (RONR 11th, p. 263). Any practice conflicting with these principles, and on which the parliamentary authorities of the assembly are otherwise silent, thus would be prohibited. That said, and as Josh said, your question can be better answered if we had a specific practice to consider.

So am I correct to understand that any FPPL can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws? This is my question, though: can one eliminate the 2/3-vote rule (and any other one relevant for the purpose) such that the minority has no rights whatsoever. Can we eliminate all rules that allow a single member to make a demand or raise a point of order? RNOR states its purpose it to protect and balance the rights of the majority, the minority, the individual, and absentees. As such, all rules in RONR, in principle and in concert, aim for this (p. li), and there is "an underlying assumption of a right that exists" (ibid., emphasis original). As such, would not suspending a rule or series of rules such that any of these rights are eliminated be, by necessity, a violation of the most fundamental principles of all?