Ken_Cheel Posted February 12, 2012 at 04:14 AM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 04:14 AM I just purchased edition11 and can't find the section that states the sub committee can't over rule the parent committees motions. The motion was not referred to the sub committee. The parent committee passed the motion and at the next meeting of the sub committee the issue was rasied by the chairman and was ruled un constitutional. Can someone help me please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 12, 2012 at 04:41 AM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 04:41 AM Are you at least laughing a little, Ken? It's kinda hard to know where to begin, when the issue is so arrantly preposterous. You think?(More later.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 12, 2012 at 04:51 AM Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 04:51 AM Gary, I agree that it is preposterous. However I have a meeting on Thursday and I need to wave my little book and point out the section that says you did a "no-no" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 12, 2012 at 06:45 AM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 06:45 AM To my surprise, because I thought there was a little more, pretty much all there is about subcommittees is the little paragraph in the middle of p. 497, aside from a couple of side-mentions (listed there in the index, although someone with the CD of the 10th Edition might find a sentence that the index of both editions implausibly missed). Not even a definition; I was hoping for something that emphasized the subcommittee's subordinate status and lack of power and authority, as weak appendage of a weak appendage. But we do see there the statement that the subcommittees "are responsible to and report to the committee." Which to me does not imply the authority to rule on the acts of its superior body. You either, I expect, though whether something is implied or not, to you or me, might not be a conclusive argument to a subcommittee, or its chairman just by himself, that thinks it (or) he can judge the legitimacy of acts of its parent body.Perhaps the descriptions of what committees are, on p. 9, 489, and 490 might do the trick.Perhaps the common-sense thing is for the parent committee to ignore the subcommittee's insurrection altogether. Or, since committees can instruct their subcommittees, the committee should instruct the subcommittee to shut up about the parent committee's motion and do as it's told.But if the committee's motion was an instruction to the subcommittee, and the subcommittee's response is to tell the committee that its instruction was "ultra vires", then I think we just have to stand there flummoxed and slack-jawed, until the committee can dismiss the subcommittee's members and repopulate it with sane people (or, if you can't find any, Americans). Note also that if I am driven to surreal misuse of Latin phrases like this, we need to be laughing again already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:19 AM Guest_Ken ---- go easy on yourself. It's very simple. Ask the sub-committee chairman to show you (or whoever the appropriate person/group is in all this) the rule in RONR, the bylaws, the constitutions, fed/state/local law, etc, that says the sub-committee has the authority they have assumed over the parent committee in "declaring [the] parent committee unconstitutional." Suggestion: keep breathing while you wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:25 AM And let it run its course. What's gonna happen? The parent committee rules the sub-committee's ruling improper, then the sub-committee rules uh-uh, then the parent committee rules um, yeah!, and the sub-committee says no way...There are bound to be some sensible souls who'll then speak up.....maybe?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 12, 2012 at 02:02 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 02:02 PM I just purchased edition11 and can't find the section that states the sub committee can't over rule the parent committees motions. The motion was not referred to the sub committee. The parent committee passed the motion and at the next meeting of the sub committee the issue was rasied by the chairman and was ruled un constitutional. Can someone help me please.Assuming (for the moment) that the committee adopted a motion which is indeed in conflict with the organization's constitution -- that kind of problem would properly be addressed by a point of order raised at a subsequent meeting of the committee (the body that adopted the motion). A superior body within the organization (i.e. the general membership in most of the organizations we deal with here) could also overturn (rescind) the committee's action. However, an inferior body (the subcommittee) does not have authority to do either of these things.Take a look at Official Interpretation 2006-12 and OI 2006-13. That will give some insight into the relationship between superior and inferior bodies, in terms of one body changing (or attempting to change) the decisions of the other.Now, if the subcommittee's responsibilities include examining the committee's actions for compliance with the constitution, the subcommittee could report its opinion on the matter. But, even then, the subcommittee couldn't make a 'ruling' overturning the motion, and certainly the subcommittee chair couldn't make such a decision unilaterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 12, 2012 at 02:27 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 02:27 PM To specifically answer the "Can it?" question: Sure it can; so can I. I too think your committee's motion is unconstitutional.You can pay as much attention to the sub-committee as you did to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 12, 2012 at 07:42 PM Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 07:42 PM The Parent Committee which I sit on, has called an Emergent Meeting for Thursday to discuss this topic. The motion was not directed to the sub-committee. I was hoping the paragraph on committee stucture which was in the 4th edition was still in the book but that is not the case. I was hoping to start the meeting with a point of order indicating the sub-committee didn't have the authority. Our By Laws are very specific and indicates it must be the current edition of RR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 12, 2012 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 08:41 PM The Parent Committee which I sit on, has called an Emergent Meeting for Thursday to discuss this topic. The motion was not directed to the sub-committee. I was hoping the paragraph on committee stucture which was in the 4th edition was still in the book but that is not the case. I was hoping to start the meeting with a point of order indicating the sub-committee didn't have the authority. Our By Laws are very specific and indicates it must be the current edition of RR.Why is the (inherently null and void) action of the subcommittee chair reason for an emergency meeting of the parent committee? Is the subcommittee instrumental in carrying out the decision of the committee, and is the subcommittee standing in the way of that decision being carried out? Otherwise, as Dr. Stackpole pointed out in post #8, why does anyone care about the subcommittee chair's so-called 'ruling'?To the extent that the previously cited Official Interpretations are relevant to your situation, see also this clarification of the standing of the Official Interpretations:http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 12, 2012 at 09:22 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 09:22 PM I just purchased edition11 and can't find the section that states the sub committee can't over rule the parent committees motions. The motion was not referred to the sub committee. The parent committee passed the motion and at the next meeting of the sub committee the issue was rasied by the chairman and was ruled un constitutional. Can someone help me please.The Parent Committee which I sit on, has called an Emergent Meeting for Thursday to discuss this topic. The motion was not directed to the sub-committee. I was hoping the paragraph on committee stucture which was in the 4th edition was still in the book but that is not the case. I was hoping to start the meeting with a point of order indicating the sub-committee didn't have the authority. Our By Laws are very specific and indicates it must be the current edition of RR.Trying once more... the problem here may be that you are searching for a specific prohibition against something that makes no sense in the first place (i.e. a subordinate body overruling the actions of a superior body) -- there aren't a lot of citations like that -- the book would grow to truly unmanagable proportions if it specifically named every nonsensical and improper action the authors could dream up.You might want to read pp. 124-125 on the motion to Ratify, particularly ll. 24-35.'The motion to ratify... is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly. Cases... include:...action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority;' [emphasis added]The clear implication is that an action taken in excess of a subordinate body's authority is simply not valid. There is no need to find it invalid, or take action to make it invalid -- it just is invalid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:02 PM Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:02 PM Why is the (inherently null and void) action of the subcommittee chair reason for an emergency meeting of the parent committee? Is the subcommittee instrumental in carrying out the decision of the committee, and is the subcommittee standing in the way of that decision being carried out? Otherwise, as Dr. Stackpole pointed out in post #8, why does anyone care about the subcommittee chair's so-called 'ruling'?To the extent that the previously cited Official Interpretations are relevant to your situation, see also this clarification of the standing of the Official Interpretations:http://www.robertsru...ist.html#2006_1The reason for the emergent meeting is because the chairman of the subcommittee has friends on the parent committee and he is an "A" type personality. He wants his way and the other members don't know or won't reserch the topics he "rules" on. There are three topics within the emergent meeting. The two other topics are easily found within the 11th edition. The one topic I expected to be the easiest is now becoming the most difficult.What if I read the clear text from a previous edition and say it has never been over turned in any subsiquent edition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:12 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:12 PM What if I read the clear text from a previous edition and say it has never been over turned in any subsiquent edition?The problem there is that there is only one edition which has authority, unless your bylaws (unwisely) adopt a specific edition as its parliamentary authority. The current edition, the 11th, is the one that has authority now. I'd think that page 9 lines 25-28, and page 497 lines 14-16 might be enough. But if others in your organization aren't inclined to follow the rules, or the rule book, it's going to be an uphill battle no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2012 at 11:31 PM I agree it is going to be an uphill battle. I also think page 9 lines 25-28 might be the correct lines I was looking for. However, since no one is listening I don't know if anything I do or say will make any difference. Thanks for all of the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 13, 2012 at 02:44 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 02:44 AM The reason for the emergent meeting is because the chairman of the subcommittee has friends on the parent committee and he is an "A" type personality. He wants his way and the other members don't know or won't reserch the topics he "rules" on. There are three topics within the emergent meeting. The two other topics are easily found within the 11th edition. The one topic I expected to be the easiest is now becoming the most difficult.What if I read the clear text from a previous edition and say it has never been over turned in any subsiquent edition?Well, if the committee members are worried enough to call a special meeting, and if they (or at least the majority of them) end up agreeing with the subcommittee chair's so-called ruling, then they (the members of the committee) do have the authority to raise a point of order and to find their previously adopted motion to be in conflict with the constitution.In other words, nothing has been done yet -- the subcommittee's action has accomplished nothing in a parliamentary sense. However, if the assembly that adopted the motion makes the same finding, that assembly (the committee) does have the authority to determine that a continuing breach exists (see RONR 11th ed. p. 251) and to recognize that its own motion is null and void.Thus, since the special meeting has already been called, perhaps you should read up on continuing breaches, and martial some arguments as to why the motion is not in conflict with the constitution; rather than focusing all your attention on whether the subcommittee acted improperly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Cheel Posted February 13, 2012 at 08:30 PM Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 08:30 PM I will take a look at p 251. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.