unknown

[Guest Leona McILvain]

What happens to appointed committees, when the sitting board is disolved and later a new one is established?

[hmtcastle]

What happens to appointed committees, when the sitting board is disolved and later a new one is established?

If the committee was a creation of the board, it may be that the committee dissolves with the dissolution of the "old board" (see p.471).

But how/why was the board "dissolved"? Were all the board members removed from office and new members elected/appointed? Or were the bylaws actually amended to eliminate the board and then amended, again, to re-create the board?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

What happens to appointed committees, when the sitting board is dissolved and later a new one is established?

Committees continue on to complete their task.

Committees (ad hoc committees or special committees) only dissolve when their work is complete, i.e., when their final report is presented.

Standing committees never dissolve.

A board's natural election cycle does nothing to a committee. -- So a new board never implies a new committee automatically.

The new board will likely replace personnel on its committees. -- Add some people; subtract some people; alter the charge of the committees; appoint new committee chairmen; etc.

But replacing personnel on a committee IS NOT THE SAME THING AS to dissolve (or to discharge) a committee.

***

In fact, to create a committee is the ONLY way one convention can pass its work to the next convention. -- The convention can create a committee, and order that committee to report to the next convention.

The convention may adjourn sine die. -- Yet the committee so created continues to next year, under its orders.

[hmtcastle]

A board's natural election cycle does nothing to a committee.

That's not what RONR says (on p. 471) in the paragraph called, "EFFECT OF PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP". Note especially the reference (on lines 22-23) to committees.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

That's not what RONR says (on p. 471) in the paragraph called, "EFFECT OF PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP". Note especially the reference (on lines 22-23) to committees.

Yes it is.

It says, "chooses new committees."

That is a CHANGE IN PERSONNEL.

The committee itself NEVER DISSOLVES.

See page 471.

EFFECT OF PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP.

In cases where a board is constituted so that a specified portion of its membership is chosen periodically (as, for example, where one third of the board is elected annually for three-year terms), it becomes, in effect, a new board each time such a group assumes board membership.

Consequently, [...] and if the board is one that elects its own officers or appoints standing committees, it chooses new officers and committees as soon as the new board members have taken up their duties, just as if the entire board membership had changed.

See RONR page 474.

A special (select, or ad hoc) committee is a committee appointed, as the need arises, to carry out a specified task, at the completion of which--that is, on presentation of its final report to the assembly--it automatically ceases to exist.

RONR does not say that a committee ceases to exist when a new board is elected.

RONR does not say that a committee ceases to exist when a board picks new personnel.

The board picks the personnel.

The committee continues.

The CHARGE of the committee stays the same.

(If there had been a true dissolving of a committee, then a NEW CHARGE must ensue. But RONR does not say this. The picking of new personnel is independent of the work of the committee. The board is under no obligation to change anyone on a committee. There is no fixed term of office for a committee, except for page 474's final report trigger.

***

Analogy:

Every spring training there are new players on a baseball club.

The manager will make out a new regular starting eight.

Q. Does this imply that the team (Yankees, Dogers, etc.) dissolved?

No, the team did not dissolve. -- Only the personnel changed, from week to week, month to month, year to year. The "work" of the team continues, despite the change of personnel. Adding or subtracting a catcher or outfielder has nothing to do with the ongoing ballclub's existence. It isn't the personnel swapping which determines whether the team has gone out of existence.

[hmtcastle]

It says, "chooses new committees."

That is a CHANGE IN PERSONNEL.

Maybe it is and maybe it isn't.

And yet you said, "A board's natural election cycle does nothing to a committee."

Are you now defining "nothing" to mean "nothing other than a CHANGE IN PERSONNEL"?

To use your baseball analogy, if the roster of the Dodgers was replaced with the roster of the Yankees, would Dodgers' fans say that nothing was done to their team?

[Gary Novosielski]

What happens to appointed committees, when the sitting board is disolved and later a new one is established?

The committees as entities continue to exist--forever (or until the bylaws are changed), in the case of a standing committee or until they rise and report, in the case of a select committee.

But the new board would appoint new members, and select new chairmen. Of course they would also be free to keep the old ones, but nobody automatically gets to keep their position.

[Josh Martin]

What happens to appointed committees, when the sitting board is disolved and later a new one is established?

New members and chairmen are appointed (or old members and chairmen are reappointed) for standing committees. Special committees are unaffected. The current members continue serving until their successors are chosen.

But the new board would appoint new members, and select new chairmen. Of course they would also be free to keep the old ones, but nobody automatically gets to keep their position.

This is only true for standing committees. Special committees continue with the same members throughout the committee's existence, unless the appointing authority replaces them. I would also avoid assuming that the board has the authority to appoint the committees' members.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

And yet you said, "A board's natural election cycle does nothing to a committee."

Right.

Test it out:

• At 8:22 pm, an organization finalizes its annual election.

Q. At 8:23 pm, which committee has changed?

A. No committee has changed. Not the personnel of the committee. Not the charge of the committee. Not the existence of the committee.

Are you now defining "nothing" to mean "nothing other than a CHANGE IN PERSONNEL"?

Yes. --And not even that. -- The board must MEET to change the personnel. A motion must be moved and adopted to (a.) take Mr. Green off; (b.) put Mrs. White on; (c.) change the chairman from Prof. Plum to Miss Scarlet.

The election will have changed nothing.

The new board members will have done nothing.

Only the board, via a motion in properly called quorate meeting, can terminate membership of committee members (if the board is so empowered, which might not be the case).

To use your baseball analogy, if the roster of the Dodgers was replaced with the roster of the Yankees, would Dodgers' fans say that nothing was done to their team?

The only thing which will have been altered is the PERSONNEL.

The Yankees stay in New York. The Dodgers stay in Los Angeles. The season schedule does not change. The ownership does not change.

So, by the word "Nothing" I mean, "Existence does not change. Purpose does not change. Work does not change."

You can change personnel on a committee all you want.

Its existence continues.

Its work continues.

A committee is never dissolved merely due to personnel changeovers.

Thus the caveat:

Some people think that a natural election cycle for its board causes committees to vanish into thin air.

You and I know that the new board need not alter one single seat on any committee, if the board chooses to do nothing, and thus let the various committees continue their work unabated.

[Josh Martin]

You and I know that the new board need not alter one single seat on any committee, if the board chooses to do nothing, and thus let the various committees continue their work unabated.

It would seem to me that if the members of standing committees serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers (as RONR states), then the appointing authority (which may or may not be the board), should make a motion to reappoint the existing members of the committees, if that is the appointing authority's desire. While doing nothing will ultimately have the same result, since the members continue to serve until their successors are appointed, that seems like sloppy procedure to me.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It would seem to me that if the members of standing committees serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers (as RONR states), then the appointing authority (which may or may not be the board), should make a motion to reappoint the existing members of the committees, if that is the appointing authority's desire. While doing nothing will ultimately have the same result, since the members continue to serve until their successors are appointed, that seems like sloppy procedure to me.

For reference.

Page 486, especially line 32.

(Continuity and conclusion of committee assignments)

...

[re "standing committee"]

... The members of the old committee continue their duties until their successors are chosen.

A special committee ... continues to exist until the duty assigned to it is accomplished ...

Note that the above page addresses

(a.) personnel swap, in one case;

(b.) existence of the committee, in the other case.

#a does not affect #b.

#b can affect #a, i.e., dissolving a committee will automatically release all members from their common obligation -- a "swap out" without a corresponding "swap in".

[Josh Martin]

For reference.

Page 486, especially line 32.

Note that the above page addresses

(a.) personnel swap, in one case;

(b.) existence of the committee, in the other case.

#a does not affect #b.

#b can affect #a, i.e., dissolving a committee will automatically release all members from their common obligation -- a "swap out" without a corresponding "swap in".

I am well aware that a special committee continues to exist until it has finished its obligation, and that its members continue serving throughout the committee's existence unless the appointing authority takes action to replace them. The members of a standing committee, however, serve for a term corresponding to the term of the officers, and it therefore does not seem appropriate for the appointing authority to "do nothing" if it does not wish to replace the members of a standing committee. Rather, the appointing authority should adopt a motion to appoint the existing members of the committee to another term. I agree that doing nothing is the appropriate course of action if the appointing authority does not wish to change the personnel of a special committee.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The members of a standing committee, however, serve for a term corresponding to the term of the officers, and it therefore does not seem appropriate for the appointing authority to "do nothing" if it does not wish to replace the members of a standing committee.

That cannot be the case.

RONR says that standing committee members serve until their successors are elected.

Page 473, line 20.

In an ordinary society,

the members of such a committee [i.e., standing committees] serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers,

or until their successors have been chosen ...

[Gary Novosielski]

That cannot be the case.

RONR says that standing committee members serve until their successors are elected.

That is true, but it is likely that the same is true of the officers themselves. That doesn't mean it's okay not to hold elections because the officers will continue to serve. When their terms are up, you are supposed to choose successors, even if they succeed themselves.

The same applies to standing committees. When the standing committee members' terms are up, as they are when a new board (or a segment of it) is elected it is proper for the new board to appoint new committee members, even if they are the same as the old committee members. And they should do so without delay.

[Josh Martin]

That cannot be the case.

RONR says that standing committee members serve until their successors are elected.

Page 473, line 20.

It is my understanding that the "or until the successors are elected" language is intended to provide for continuity in service on the committees in the interval until the appointing authority has appointed committee members, such as if the committee needs to meet before the first meeting of the appointing authority, or if the appointing authority needs time to find new members. I don't believe it is a suggestion that elections are only necessary when the appointing authority wishes to replace members. If that was the case, why would the committee members have a term at all?