Committee Appointments

[Guest Gary]

The Board of Directors section of our Club Bylaws concerning the Commodore's authority includes "He shall appoint all committees". At our annual membership meeting there was a unanimous vote (including the Board members) that the Commodore appoint 3 specifically named regular Club members (not on the Board) to the Bylaws Commitee. Does this obligate the Commodore to comply with the members mandate? What justifications could the Commodore use to defy the Club members will? Thank you. Gary

[Dan Honemann]

The Board of Directors section of our Club Bylaws concerning the Commodore's authority includes "He shall appoint all committees". At our annual membership meeting there was a unanimous vote (including the Board members) that the Commodore appoint 3 specifically named regular Club members (not on the Board) to the Bylaws Commitee. Does this obligate the Commodore to comply with the members mandate? What justifications could the Commodore use to defy the Club members will? Thank you. Gary

Based solely upon what you have posted, it would appear that your Commodore can appoint whomever he wishes. He needs no justification other than the bylaws which confer this power upon him alone.

[Guest Gary]

RRON 11th Edition Article XVI Boards and Committees states (Whenever it is

stated in the bylaws that the president "shall appoint all committees" this

means that the president shall select the persons to serve on such

committees as the bylaws prescribe to be established or the assemble may

direct to be appointed)

[Bruce Lages]

Assuming you are the same Guest_Gary_ as the original poster, are you answering your own question, or suggesting that the quoted text from RONR says something different than the answer Mr. Honemann gave you?

[Guest Gary]

Yes same Gary. Alwasy work toward my own answers while seek the opinion of others. It appears that Article XVI Section 50 page 495 line 29-35 does conflict with Mr Honemann's response.

[Tim Wynn]

RRON 11th Edition Article XVI Boards and Committees states (Whenever it is

stated in the bylaws that the president "shall appoint all committees" this

means that the president shall select the persons to serve on such

committees as the bylaws prescribe to be established or the assemble may

direct to be appointed)

The president SELECTS the persons. Read the rest of the sentence from RONR, which further illustrates the point being made, that the president being authorized to appoint committee members does not authorize him to create committees.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes same Gary. Alwasy work toward my own answers while seek the opinion of others. It appears that [Chapter] XVI Section 50 page 495 line 29-35 does conflict with Mr Honemann's response.

If you look on the front cover, you will see Mr. Honemann's name, so I don't think he could be reasonably expected to contradict what you find on the inside.

[jstackpo]

RRON 11th Edition Article XVI Boards and Committees states (Whenever it is

stated in the bylaws that the president "shall appoint all committees" this

means that the president shall select the persons to serve on such

committees as the bylaws prescribe to be established or the assemble may

direct to be appointed)

Although Gary correctly quotes what RONR says (p. 495, lines 31-35) the meaning of the sentence would be greatly enhanced if the words "may direct to be appointed", were changed (RONR/12 - ?) to "may direct to be established".

"Appoint" (check any dictionary) has a primary meaning of "to name people to" a (presumably preexisting) committee or defined group. And that is all. As it is now the quoted sentence is just self contradictory nonsense. "Establish" denotes clearly the power of the assembly to create committees, but not populate them.

This misuse of "appoint" in place of "establish" or "establish and appoint" is quite pervasive throughout RONR/11 (and its predecessors). (It is also, unfortunately, somewhat common usage in the wider world.)

[Guest Edgar]

This misuse of "appoint" in place of "establish" or "establish and appoint" is quite pervasive throughout RONR/11 (and its predecessors).

I thought I remembered something to this effect. I guess "appoint" can be added to "expunge".

[jstackpo]

Well, there are (many) places in the book where "appoint" is used quite correctly in it's dictionary meaning.

I am just urging that the (also "many") incorrect (and confusing) uses be set aright.

Keep the baby but in clean fresh bathwater.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, there are (many) places in the book where "appoint" is used quite correctly in it's dictionary meaning.

I am just urging that the (also "many") incorrect (and confusing) uses be set aright.

Keep the baby but in clean fresh bathwater.

All of the passages in RONR to which reference is made in this connection, when read in context, should be perfectly clear to persons of reasonable intelligence. We looked carefully at them all (with this oft-stated complaint well in mind, and saw no reason whatsoever for making further changes.

[Guest Gary]

Excellant and much appreciated responses. Appologies to Mr Honemann if offended which was not my intention and I am honored that you have contributed to this discussion which has lead to a question on Board authority to establish a committee in the first place, correct? If that is the case then would a Board need society members approval to establish a Bylaw Committee or a project Committee of any kind? This would seem to inhibit the Board ability to function, or just use a different word like commission. Agasin on the subject of selecting people to be on a committee, if 100% of the assembly select people they want to be on a committee but the Presedent selects other people that he wants (possibly for reasons the assembly may not accept) then why bother seeking the vote of the assembly on this or many other society business?Than you, Gary

[jstackpo]

It appears that this son of an English teacher and Mr. Honemann will just have to agree to disagree on the "appoint" vs. "establish" matter.

[Guest Edgar]

It appears that this son of an English teacher and Mr. Honemann will just have to agree to disagree on the "appoint" vs. "establish" matter.

I guess "expunge" was carefully looked at also and it was decided that, if you read it in context with the part about it not actually expunging anything, it's perfectly clear too.

[Dan Honemann]

Excellant and much appreciated responses. Appologies to Mr Honemann if offended which was not my intention and I am honored that you have contributed to this discussion which has lead to a question on Board authority to establish a committee in the first place, correct? If that is the case then would a Board need society members approval to establish a Bylaw Committee or a project Committee of any kind? This would seem to inhibit the Board ability to function, or just use a different word like commission. Agasin on the subject of selecting people to be on a committee, if 100% of the assembly select people they want to be on a committee but the Presedent selects other people that he wants (possibly for reasons the assembly may not accept) then why bother seeking the vote of the assembly on this or many other society business?Than you, Gary

First of all, please be assured that there is no need whatsoever for any apologies. We welcome your participation in this forum, and hope that you will find it helpful.

Look back again at your initial question and at my response (the first two posts in this thread). Then read carefully what is said in your copy of RONR (11th ed.) on page 495, lines 11-26 (especially lines 18-26). You may also want to look at page 587, lines 32-34, to see how this is handled in the sample bylaws. After doing this, look carefully again at your own bylaws to make sure you know exactly what they say. Determine for yourself if they do, in fact, say that your Commodore shall appoint all committees, and if this grant of authority refers to all committees established by your membership as well as all committees established by your board. Then if questions remain, come back again and we will see if we can be of any further assistance.

[Guest Guest]

I did as you advised Mr Honemann and it leads to vaulable amendmants our Bylaw Commitee ( which I am on) should propose to the members. We currently have no reference to what authority establishes special or standing commitees so technicaly there can be none. The Bylaws do state "He (meaning the Commodore) shall appoint all committees." So you are leading me to conclude that Page 495 lines 32-35 "the president shall select the persons to serve on such committees as the bylaws prescribe to be established or the assemble may direct to be appointed" meanes he will chose people for commitees which the assemble has directed to exist. Therefore technically we have no Bylaw Committee for the Commodore to apoint people on, right? This means we need a special meeting of the Club members to vote on amendments developed by individuals (a commission?) to include relevant Committees like Bylaw, Audit, disiplanary, etc and language that the assembly also has authority to appoint committee members. I am already draging people along on this so now I will need a tractor. Gary

[jstackpo]

Not quite: an assembly (your members in a meeting, or your board in a (board) meeting) are free to establish as many different committees (both standing and special as needed) as you wish by the RONR motion to "commit"-- p. 168. Once established, however, the Commodore gets to name who is on the committees ("appoint").

It is nice, but not required, to list "important" committees in the bylaws - when the motions amending the bylaws to list them are adopted they become "Standing Committees" - and this "listing" establishes them.

So committees can be set up (established) both in the bylaws AND by plain old motions, as described on p. 168 ff.

If you want to take away the Commodore's appointment power you will have to amend the bylaws.

[Josh Martin]

We currently have no reference to what authority establishes special or standing commitees so technicaly there can be none.

Well, no, you have whatever standing committees exist in your Bylaws or if there are none, the assembly can create standing committees (by a special rule of order or a standing rule, depending on a few factors). Special committees can be created in any event. The board can create its own special committees as well.

The Bylaws do state "He (meaning the Commodore) shall appoint all committees." So you are leading me to conclude that Page 495 lines 32-35 "the president shall select the persons to serve on such committees as the bylaws prescribe to be established or the assemble may direct to be appointed" meanes he will chose people for commitees which the assemble has directed to exist.

Yes, or those which are established in the Bylaws.

Therefore technically we have no Bylaw Committee for the Commodore to apoint people on, right?

I'm not sure. How was this committee created? If the Commodore created it, that doesn't cut it. The committee would need to be in your rules or created by the assembly.

This means we need a special meeting of the Club members to vote on amendments developed by individuals (a commission?) to include relevant Committees like Bylaw, Audit, disiplanary, etc and language that the assembly also has authority to appoint committee members. I am already draging people along on this so now I will need a tractor.

Yes, if you don't already have legitimate committees, creating some would be a good idea. If your desire is to let the assembly appoint committee members you can simply strike the language from the Bylaws which gives the Commodore the authority to appoint committees, as the default rule in RONR is that the power to appoint committee members rests with the parent assembly. The assembly could still choose to let the Commodore appoint members in a particular case if it wished.

Not quite: an assembly (your members in a meeting, or your board in a (board) meeting) are free to establish as many different committees (both standing and special as needed) as you wish by the RONR motion to "commit"-- p. 168. Once established, however, the Commodore gets to name who is on the committees ("appoint").

It is nice, but not required, to list "important" committees in the bylaws - when the motions amending the bylaws to list them are adopted they become "Standing Committees" - and this "listing" establishes them.

So committees can be set up (established) both in the bylaws AND by plain old motions, as described on p. 168 ff.

Yes... but if standing committees are established in the Bylaws, other standing committees may not be created (although special committees can still be created).

[Tim Wynn]

Not quite: an assembly (your members in a meeting, or your board in a (board) meeting) are free to establish as many different committees (both standing and special as needed) as you wish by the RONR motion to "commit"-- p. 168.

A Standing Committee is not created by the subsidiary motion to commit. It could be created by a main motion, if not prohibited by language in the bylaws.

[jstackpo]

Responding to two separate points in previous postings...

J. Martin, #18, said: "Yes... but if standing committees are established in the Bylaws, other standing committees may not be created (although special committees can still be created)."

Quite correct (p. 491, lines 26-32 & p. 578, lines 21-27). My initial assertion (back in #17) didn't contain that qualification, although it didn't matter in Guest_Gary's situation since his bylaws did not contain any Standing Committees, or so he said.

T. Wynn, #19, said: "A Standing Committee is not created by the subsidiary motion to commit."

Well now, I am not going to concede that one. Although Section 13 certainly implies that a subsidiary motion to commit (a Main Motion) to a Standing Committee includes the assumption that an appropriate Standing Committee already exists, I do not see in that Section, any direct prohibition that would prevent the establishment of a Standing Committee as part of the motion to commit.

It is easy enough to dream up a situation where an association is considering a Main Motion and they come to realize that the issue involved is a "large" one with long term aspects for the association. So they move to commit the Main Motion to a new Standing Committee with instructions, say, to report on the particular problem AND to stick around to contemplate, and perhaps propose solutions to, the long term problems that are involved. And be ready to take on new variations on the problem. I am assuming that none of the "special rules of order" powers are granted to the committee, as listed on p. 491.

Whats wrong with that?

As ever, I stand ready to be corrected if a direct prohibition can be pointed out to me.

[Dan Honemann]

Responding to two separate points in previous postings...

J. Martin, #18, said: "Yes... but if standing committees are established in the Bylaws, other standing committees may not be created (although special committees can still be created)."

Quite correct (p. 491, lines 26-32 & p. 578, lines 21-27). My initial assertion (back in #17) didn't contain that qualification, although it didn't matter in Guest_Gary's situation since his bylaws did not contain any Standing Committees, or so he said.

T. Wynn, #19, said: "A Standing Committee is not created by the subsidiary motion to commit."

Well now, I am not going to concede that one. Although Section 13 certainly implies that a subsidiary motion to commit (a Main Motion) to a Standing Committee includes the assumption that an appropriate Standing Committee already exists, I do not see in that Section, any direct prohibition that would prevent the establishment of a Standing Committee as part of the motion to commit.

It is easy enough to dream up a situation where an association is considering a Main Motion and they come to realize that the issue involved is a "large" one with long term aspects for the association. So they move to commit the Main Motion to a new Standing Committee with instructions, say, to report on the particular problem AND to stick around to contemplate, and perhaps propose solutions to, the long term problems that are involved. And be ready to take on new variations on the problem. I am assuming that none of the "special rules of order" powers are granted to the committee, as listed on p. 491.

Whats wrong with that?

As ever, I stand ready to be corrected if a direct prohibition can be pointed out to me.

Standing committees may only be created by (i) a specific provision in the bylaws, or (ii) adoption of either a special rule of order or a standing rule (RONR, 11^th ed., p. 491, ll. 6-26). Special rules of order and standing rules are created by the adoption of main motions (RONR, 11^th ed., pp. 16-18; tinted p. 6, Nos. 7 and 8). A fair reading of Section 13 makes it rather clear that, if anything is to be referred to a standing committee by a subsidiary motion to Commit, it would have to be to one previously established.

[jstackpo]

Fair enough -- I stand corrected. Although the word "only", found in the first line of Dan's posting, doesn't exist in the cited RONR passage, I suppose the word "must" is a fair equivalent.

I learn something new (or get straightened out) every day.

[Guest Gary]

This has been a most interest and informative exchange. If I may refer back to the original concern which is that the assembly unanimously voted for regular members to be on a special Bylaw Committee (not standing at this point in time). Does RRON provide that the Commodore would need to provide jusitification for not complying with the members mandate? If the members mandate was not fuffilled is the only solution to call for a special meeting of the members to vote on Bylaw amendments that provide them with the needed authority to accomplish what the members want? Thank you, Gary

[Dan Honemann]

This has been a most interest and informative exchange. If I may refer back to the original concern which is that the assembly unanimously voted for regular members to be on a special Bylaw Committee (not standing at this point in time). Does RRON provide that the Commodore would need to provide jusitification for not complying with the members mandate? If the members mandate was not fuffilled is the only solution to call for a special meeting of the members to vote on Bylaw amendments that provide them with the needed authority to accomplish what the members want? Thank you, Gary

These questions have been answered; "no" is the answer to the first, and "yes, you apparently will need to amend your bylaws" is the answer to the second.

[Steven Britton]

Fair enough -- I stand corrected. Although the word "only", found in the first line of Dan's posting, doesn't exist in the cited RONR passage, I suppose the word "must" is a fair equivalent.

I learn something new (or get straightened out) every day.

Hi Dr. Stackpole:

I'm pondering the answer to this question:

Could a standing committee be created by way of moving an incidental main motion, to commit?