Committee confusion

[wfdickjr]

I have read RONR pages 471-473 several times but remain unclear on the answers to the following questions regarding the missions of, and differences between, standing committees and special committees. I once thought I understood this well but now find that I am not so sure. I believe I have read the answers to some of these questions elsewhere in RONR but am unable to find them again.

Without going into the reasons, these questions are definitely not hypothetical. On the other hand, there is probably no need to answer them individually. The real need is for someone to see where my confusion lies and help me out of the fog. Because this does relate to real issues, however, references to supporting passages in RONR will be greatly appreciated.

1. What, if any, are the limits on the term “specified task” as applied to special committees?

2. Is it legal under RONR, or reasonable, for example, to create a “special” committee with a “specified task” that, like a standing committee, never ends (e.g. “Handle all matters in the area of public relations including but not limited to social media and the web site”)?

3. Is it legal under RONR to create a special committee with a less sweeping but nonetheless involved task of “Develop and implement a new web site?” Or do we need to create a new committee for each individual question (e.g. selection of developer, selection of hosting service, etc.?)

4. If it is legal under RONR to create a special committee with a general task, may this special committee choose to meet on its own authority, deliberate, and originate motions to the main body or must each individual question be referred from the main body?

5. (Related to question 4) With respect to creation of a standing committee, in the passage from RONR, p.473 l.35-38 does the word “act” in the phrase “have standing authority to act for the society” mean “have standing authority to generate a motion out of committee without having the question first referred to the committee” or does it mean “have standing authority to make a decision and act upon that decision without need for either previous referral from, or approval by, the main body.”

I apologize if this seems confused but that is, in fact, my mental state. Again, references to RONR will be much appreciated.

[Tim Wynn]

1. The specified task is whatever the parent body says it is.

2. The type of committee in your example is in the nature of a standing committee.

3. Yes, it is in order to give a committee a general task.

4. Once the committee has been constituted, its chairman should call it together. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 482, l. 16-27. The committee's ability to make recommendations for action will, to some extent, depend on the nature of its purpose and instructions.

5. The second one.

Check your bylaws for standing committees, if any are listed and if there is no provision for creating additional standing committees, then no standing committees can be created, except by amending the bylaws.

[Gary c Tesser]

([snipping])

I have read RONR pages 471-473 several times but remain unclear on the answers to the following questions regarding the missions of, and differences between, standing committees and special committees. I once thought I understood this well but now find that I am not so sure.

The real need is for someone to see where my confusion lies and help me out of the fog.

wfdickjr, I suspect that you used to have a sensible handle on the differences, but you let the grey areas, where the distinctions might blur, lead you astray. I submit that you are not as confused as you believe you are.

To illustrate, I bet you would have no difficulty naming easy, clear examples of each type of committee. Make something up or use standard examples, it doesn't matter. Stop there and calm down a while: it's when you jump immediately into "but what about ..." thinking that you can get confused.

For example. Our volunteer fire department needs a new fire truck. We assign a committee to look into it, make a recommendation, and then disband. A special committee: easy, eh?

But no fire truck lasts forever, so presumably our VFD will purchase fire trucks periodically. If we want a committee to stay on top of the fire truck industry, be available whenever we need another one, that would be a a standing committee, nest-pop (as we French fire fighters say)?

Now then. Suppose we want to buy a bunny rabbit for our fire department's pet crocodile to play with, and we establish a committee to buy one ("with power" -- see wfdickjr's Question 5). The bunny is bought, committee disbands: it is a special committee, clearly, yes (that's English for "nest-pop")?

But then we discover that apparently our crocodile periodically needs another bunnyrabbit playmate. So the VFD constitutes the committee to stay in existence indefinitely, either (depending on its instructions) reporting to the membership the periodic status of our rabbit supply, or just up and buying one when needed. This, then, would be a standing committee.

When edges blur, we got blurred edges. That's not you being confused: it's the situation.

* * * *

Extra Credit. The committee notices the alarming effect of rabbit purchasing on the fire department's budget, and comes up with the idea that it might be more cost-effective to buy a wildebeest herd for our crocodile to play with, long-term. Question: this committee is established and charged only with buying bunnyrabbits. Is it, then, outside the purview of the committee to recommend, in one of its reports, buying wildebeests? P. 496 - 7 says "within the committee's concern." wdickjr, now maybe you got me confused. And it says standing committees -- what's different here about special committees?

* * * *

I think Mr Wynn's answer to Question 2 somewhat contradicts his answer to Question 1. Which I like, because I do also. I don't think that RONR intends the words "specified task" to be so open-ended. Tim, you agree?

[wfdickjr]

Thank you for your responses.

A big part of my problem is that I somehow developed the notion that, in addition to permanence and rights of creation, there was another big difference between a standing and special committees. I also thought that a standing committee could take up any question within the scope of its mission even if said question was not referred from the main body. A special committee, or so I thought, could only deliberate a single, very specific question referred to it at the time of creation.

Where I got either of those two notions is a mystery to me. I have been unable to find any citations to support either. That is how I started to doubt my understanding of the differences between the two types of committees.

With the hope that someone will correct my misunderstandings, it now seems to me that the only differences between standing and special committees are:

1. The name.

2. Permanence. Conceivably, a special committee could be created and given responsibilities that are equivalent to a standing committee but the special committee would still end with a new board [RONR p.471, l.13-28] and/or with new officers [RONR p.485, l.2-6.]

3. Right to create. New standing committees may not be created unless bylaws permit. [RONR p.474, l.11-17.]

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

Whew! Either your understanding is off, or mine is.

[wfdickjr]

Whew! Either your understanding is off, or mine is.

Actually, everything you said makes perfect sense to me. That is exactly the way I saw/see it as well. Unfortunately, the citations I am able to find don't seem to support the way I see it.

I wish this were just academic but it is a real issue.

Until a month ago, two of these hybrid or "standing special" committees existed in my organization. My organization called them "Temporary Committees." Despite their name, these committees had no logical end to their mission and no one was inclined to end them. I was able to prevent their continuation on grounds that a special committee - even though its mission is not complete - ceases to exist when a) the board changes and all unfinished business falls to the ground or when officers change. As a result, those committees are now gone. The question is on what grounds do I prevent the return of these or similar committees?

I was looking for was a citation that placed a clear limit on the "specified task" of a special committee. I have yet to find one. The best I can do is say that if it walks like a standing committee and quacks like a standing committee, then it is a standing committee no matter what name we put on it. That makes sense to me - but I am no parliamentarian.

[Tim Wynn]

I think Mr Wynn's answer to Question 2 somewhat contradicts his answer to Question 1. Which I like, because I do also. I don't think that RONR intends the words "specified task" to be so open-ended. Tim, you agree?

A standing committee lasts forever and a special committee goes out of existence when it finishes its task. I don't think the nature of the task, apart from its parliamentary implications, has any bearing on the issue, whether it's ordering a pizza or counting the grains of sand on South Beach.

[wfdickjr]

A standing committee lasts forever and a special committee goes out of existence when it finishes its task. I don't think the nature of the task, apart from its parliamentary implications, has any bearing on the issue, whether it's ordering a pizza or counting the grains of sand on South Beach.

We have definitely arrived at the heart of my confusion.

If the nature of the task has no bearing on the issue as you say in this quoted response then what is the relevance of your earlier response "The type of committee in your example is in the nature of a standing committee."

What drives the train here? Is it the nature of the task or the type of the committee we say it is - regardless of its task?

[David A Foulkes]

At the risk of stepping on Mr. Wynn's reply (in his absence), I think perhaps what he meant might be explained thus.

A committee that has as its task to provide refreshments (light snacks and beverages) for the monthly board meeting is in the nature of a standing committee, as described by RONR (10th Ed., p. 471 l. 16-17) to have a continuing existence. Each month it procures and provides said refreshments, always preparing for the next meeting. Another example might be a Membership Committee, or .... oh, I don't know.... a Public Relations Committee. (Tweet!)

A committee that has as its task to provide luncheon for the Biennial Convention is in the nature of a special committee, as described by RONR (10th Ed., p. 471 l. 17-19) to go out of existence once it has completed its task. Once the food is delivered and the Convention is called to order --- Poof, it's gone! Another example might be a Bylaw Review Committee, or a Nominating Committee, each of which brings their completed task to a meeting, and --- Poof!

In a manner of speaking, it might be thought of that if the task can be "completed", it will likely be assigned to a Special Committee, while if the task is ongoing (perhaps for the life of the organization) it would be assigned to a Standing Committee. The task of each may be delivery of sustenance, thus the nature of the task does not have bearing per se.

[Tim Wynn]

At the risk of stepping on Mr. Wynn's reply (in his absence), I think perhaps what he meant might be explained thus.

Yes, it might. Good work.

[Tim Wynn]

If the nature of the task has no bearing on the issue as you say in this quoted response then what is the relevance of your earlier response "The type of committee in your example is in the nature of a standing committee."

"Handle all matters in the area of..." has a permanent feel to it. That is why I say it is in the nature of a standing committee.

[wfdickjr]

"Handle all matters in the area of..." has a permanent feel to it. That is why I say it is in the nature of a standing committee.

Agreed.

My question, however, is not what is in the nature of a standing committee. That I think I understand. My question is whether an organization can create what it calls a special committee with a "specified task" that is, as you put it so succinctly, "in the nature of a standing committee?"

To put it another way and thus return to my original question #1:

1. What, if any, are the limits on the term “specified task” as applied to special committees?

[Tim Wynn]

1. What, if any, are the limits on the term “specified task” as applied to special committees?

There are none, in a general sense. Each individual case would have to be evaluated for appropriateness. For instance, a special committee with the task of preventing Ms. Adams from voting would be out of order. A special committee with the task of opening a checking account for the organization would be in order, unless a Finance Committee already has governance over that matter.

[wfdickjr]

There are none, in a general sense. Each individual case would have to be evaluated for appropriateness. For instance, a special committee with the task of preventing Ms. Adams from voting would be out of order. A special committee with the task of opening a checking account for the organization would be in order, unless a Finance Committee already has governance over that matter.

Understood. With that framework in mind, how would the following individual case be evaluated with respect to appropriateness: an organization creates (what it regards as) a special committee with the task of "Handle all matters related to public relations."

In an earlier response, it was said that this individual case was "in the nature of a standing committee." Does that mean this individual case should be evaluated as inappropriate? If so - or if not - which RONR citations can I present to my board that support this conclusion?

[Tim Wynn]

Understood. With that framework in mind, how would the following individual case be evaluated with respect to appropriateness: an organization creates (what it regards as) a special committee with the task of "Handle all matters related to public relations."

In an earlier response, it was said that this individual case was "in the nature of a standing committee." Does that mean this individual case should be evaluated as inappropriate? If so - or if not - which RONR citations can I present to my board that support this conclusion?

1. Give notice of your intention to a) discharge the special committee to which was assigned the task of handling all matters related to public relations; and b.) create a standing committee known as the "Public Relations Committee." (if standing committees are listed in the bylaws, this should be a bylaw amendment)

2. Find another member who understands and supports your position, and make sure he's ready to second your motion.

3. In the meeting, for which proper notice has been given, make a motion to discharge the special committee. (it will be seconded by your ally)

4. In debate, explain your position and that you would like to make a standing committee to handle this task. Cite RONR(10th ed.), p. 473, l. 18-20, and p. 474, l. 24-28.

5. Move to create a standing committee, specifying the name and its duties (amending the bylaws if necessary).

[wfdickjr]

1. Give notice of your intention to a) discharge the special committee to which was assigned the task of handling all matters related to public relations; and b.) create a standing committee known as the "Public Relations Committee." (if standing committees are listed in the bylaws, this should be a bylaw amendment)

2. Find another member who understands and supports your position, and make sure he's ready to second your motion.

3. In the meeting, for which proper notice has been given, make a motion to discharge the special committee. (it will be seconded by your ally)

4. In debate, explain your position and that you would like to make a standing committee to handle this task. Cite RONR(10th ed.), p. 473, l. 18-20, and p. 474, l. 24-28.

5. Move to create a standing committee, specifying the name and its duties (amending the bylaws if necessary).

Thank you for the procedure and the citations. The citations you offer formed the basis of my original objection to the committees in question. Upon careful reading of those passages, however, it became my position that neither citation provided sufficient grounds (for this amateur) to pressure the board to take the proposed action.

The first citation lists a continuing function as the reason to create a standing committee but does not say that any committee with an indefinite end to its specified task must be created as a standing committee. The second citation says that a special committee goes out of existence when its task is completed but does not limit a special committee to tasks that can be completed.

If professional parliamentarians say that these two citations do in fact mean what I originally thought, however, I am happy to accept that opinion.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Thank you for the procedure and the citations. The citations you offer formed the basis of my original objection to the committees in question. Upon careful reading of those passages, however, it became my position that neither citation provided sufficient grounds (for this amateur) to pressure the board to take the proposed action.

The first citation lists a continuing function as the reason to create a standing committee but does not say that any committee with an indefinite end to its specified task must be created as a standing committee. The second citation says that a special committee goes out of existence when its task is completed but does not limit a special committee to tasks that can be completed.

If professional parliamentarians say that these two citations do in fact mean what I originally thought, however, I am happy to accept that opinion.

What exactly do you think should be happening with these committees that is not happening (or is happening that you think should not be) based on the wrong designation as special rather than standing?

[wfdickjr]

What exactly do you think should be happening with these committees that is not happening (or is happening that you think should not be) based on the wrong designation as special rather than standing?

At this point, my concern is that we follow the rules whatever those rules might be. My original interest began, however, shortly after the board lost 2/3 of its members and 100% of its officers.

When committee lists were posted after the new board met and elected officers, two committees categorized as "Temporary" were still on the list of committees along with the "Standing" committees. It struck me that something had to be wrong so I began to investigate. Those two committees have disappeared from the list.

My remaining concern is that we will soon create new committees to perform the functions once handled by those committees. I as well as the new board would like to do it according to the rules. Where I once thought that this would be relatively simple, I am no longer so sure. If a board member did make a motion to create a new special committee with the task of "Handling all Public Relations related matters" I personally would be hard-pressed to cite a passage from RONR that forbids such a committee/task combination. I could say, however, as did Mr. Wynn, that such a committee would be in the nature of a standing committee and suggest that the board create it as such by amending the Bylaws to include that committee.

[Shmuel Gerber]

My remaining concern is that we will soon create new committees to perform the functions once handled by those committees. I as well as the new board would like to do it according to the rules. Where I once thought that this would be relatively simple, I am no longer so sure. If a board member did make a motion to create a new special committee with the task of "Handling all Public Relations related matters" I personally would be hard-pressed to cite a passage from RONR that forbids such a committee/task combination. I could say, however, as did Mr. Wynn, that such a committee would be in the nature of a standing committee and suggest that the board create it as such by amending the Bylaws to include that committee.

What do your bylaws say about the creation of committees?