Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 19, 2012 at 02:52 AM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 02:52 AM No one knows the group is not a committee. How should this be taken care of? We are in process of our annual commission makeover, should group be asked for a final report and discharged similar to an ad hoc committee and a new committee formed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 19, 2012 at 04:07 AM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 04:07 AM Was this group given a date when it had to make it's report? If the date is the Annual Meeting then the group makes its report and the assembly would then consider it. If the date is already past then the group can be discharged from the consideration of the question by a majority vote which would put the question in the assembly's control. If the date is sometime in the future beyond the Annual Meeting then the group can be discharged by a majority vote if previous notice was given, a 2/3 vote if notice wasn't given, or a majority of the ENTIRE membership will also suffice. See RONR pp. 310-315 for details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:11 AM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 11:11 AM No one knows the group is not a committee. How should this be taken care of? We are in process of our annual commission makeover, should group be asked for a final report and discharged similar to an ad hoc committee and a new committee formed?Note that Chris H.'s response basically assumes the group is a committee -- probably because the rules in RONR know what to do with committees. You make the point that the group is not a committee -- what do you mean by that? Also, under what authority did a chair pro tem appoint this group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM No one knows the group is not a committee. How should this be taken care of? We are in process of our annual commission makeover, should group be asked for a final report and discharged similar to an ad hoc committee and a new committee formed?If the group had a task assigned (committed) to them for action or for a recommendation in the form of a report, then they are a committee. That's especially true since no one knows they are not, and therefore no one will contradict you when you say they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Philip Shaver Posted June 19, 2012 at 06:44 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 06:44 PM Was this group given a date when it had to make it's report? If the date is the Annual Meeting then the group makes its report and the assembly would then consider it. If the date is already past then the group can be discharged from the consideration of the question by a majority vote which would put the question in the assembly's control. If the date is sometime in the future beyond the Annual Meeting then the group can be discharged by a majority vote if previous notice was given, a 2/3 vote if notice wasn't given, or a majority of the ENTIRE membership will also suffice. See RONR pp. 310-315 for details.The group was appointed subject to approval of the chairman. He agreed at foiiowing meeting, no time limits were set by him. There were no time limits set, however, a new chairman and commission will be seated in Sept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:02 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:02 PM The group was appointed subject to approval of the chairman. He agreed at foiiowing meeting, no time limits were set by him. There were no time limits set, however, a new chairman and commission will be seated in Sept.I'm not sure how to read p. 502 - 503 on this. Anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:41 PM I'm not sure how to read p. 502 - 503 on this. Anyone?I think it depends on whether this group would be considered a Standing Committee or an Ad Hoc Committee (and that is a question that Phillip would have to answer using pp. 490-492 for the definitions of them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 08:47 PM No one knows the group is not a committee. How should this be taken care of? We are in process of our annual commission makeover, should group be asked for a final report and discharged similar to an ad hoc committee and a new committee formed?How do YOU know it's not a committee?If "nobody" knows it isn't, I assume everyone thinks it is.Sounds like maybe it acts like a committee.Sounds like it was appointed like a committee.Your own questions refer to treating it as a committee and forming a new committee...If it looks, smells, walks, talks, and acts like a committee, maybe it is.Might even be the sense/will of the assembly.Just saying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:58 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 09:58 PM I think it depends on whether this group would be considered a Standing Committee or an Ad Hoc Committee (and that is a question that Phillip would have to answer using pp. 490-492 for the definitions of them).Chris, Guest Shaver sounds like it's a committee: it was appointed a year ago (by a pro tem, no less); they're looking for a final report and dissolution. Let's assume it's a special committee, until we hear from Mr Shaver (Hey Phil! You're on!) -- and I did ask Post #6 assuming it's a special committee (if it's a standing committee, its members are out when the new commission members come in, in September -- Post #5, we know that). I'm leaning towards the committee or "group," is defunct (gooodness, though, not the members!) per 502, lines 31 - 35 (and since Mr Shaver says there were no time limits, I think the "unless" clause on p. 502, line 35 - p. 503, line 1, does not apply). But I'm shaky on this: why doesn't the principle on p. 502, lines 26 - 28 control? And whatever happens to the job they were given a year ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM Report Share Posted June 19, 2012 at 10:38 PM Unless Phillip throws us something that makes the situation more clear I think that given the circumstances as presented their best approach would be to give previous notice that a motion to discharge the committee/group will be made (thus only a majority vote would be required). Then the assembly can deal with whatever this committee/group was tasked to work on by addressing it directly or referring it to another (or the same) committee/group with instructions on when they are to make their report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 20, 2012 at 03:47 AM Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 03:47 AM Hi All. Thank you for your advice. Pg. 495 line11-15 is some help. pg. 502 line 26 to pg. 503 line 1. The term group was used because the pro temp chair did not have power to appoint and the matter was left for the chair to ratify or delay indefinately. The chair did neither but let the group exist without any further action. I believe it is proper at the time the commission changes to have the group submit a report and start over with a new committee if circumstances support the need. Treat group as an ad hoc committee. What say you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted June 20, 2012 at 04:02 AM Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 04:02 AM What say you?Well, firstly I say that "What say you?" is a hideous construction.Secondly, I say that this "group" has no more status than any random collection of members. So your organization is free to ignore it. It can't issue a report because, parliamentarily, it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted June 20, 2012 at 01:37 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 01:37 PM Why would it not have more status than a group of whiners who get together to bitch & moan?It was appointed by the temp chair. If the chair didn't have that power, a point of order should've been raised then, but it apparently wasn't. The group was approved by the regular chair at the next meeting he attended. Nobody raised a point of order then, either. IOW the assembly didn't object.Help me see how that's the same as a group that forms itself with no knowledge of or direction from the assembly, cuz I don't see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 20, 2012 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted June 20, 2012 at 06:43 PM Why would it not have more status than a group of whiners who get together to bitch & moan?It was appointed by the temp chair. If the chair didn't have that power, a point of order should've been raised then, but it apparently wasn't. The group was approved by the regular chair at the next meeting he attended. Nobody raised a point of order then, either. IOW the assembly didn't object....You mean he approved it by not saying anything?... the pro temp chair did not have power to appoint and the matter was left for the chair to ratify or delay indefinately. The chair did neither but let the group exist without any further action....Or, looking at an earlier post, maybe the chair did approve?The group was appointed subject to approval of the chairman. He agreed at foiiowing meeting, no time limits were set by him. There were no time limits set, however, a new chairman and commission will be seated in Sept.I'm confused. Mr. Shaver, did the chair agree to the continued existence of the 'group' or didn't he?Do your bylaws actually say that the chair has the authority both to establish committees, and to populate them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 21, 2012 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 at 08:58 PM The chair allowed the group to stand. It was not ratified by vote or motion. No timeline was set nor instructions were given. It was an ad hoc group not a standing committee. No by-laws exist. I am trying to find out if it is customary for chair to appoint or if it requires a motion and vote as commom practice. RONR pg.495 line11-20 It is my belief this should be settled according to RONR pg. 502 line 26 to pg. 503 line 2. This is because the commission will have a new chairman and a change in membership. If necessary a new committee with instructions and reporting criteria can be set. Does this seem correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted June 21, 2012 at 09:18 PM Report Share Posted June 21, 2012 at 09:18 PM The chair allowed the group to stand. It was not ratified by vote or motion. No timeline was set nor instructions were given. It was an ad hoc group not a standing committee. No by-laws exist. I am trying to find out if it is customary for chair to appoint or if it requires a motion and vote as commom practice. RONR pg.495 line11-20 It is my belief this should be settled according to RONR pg. 502 line 26 to pg. 503 line 2. This is because the commission will have a new chairman and a change in membership. If necessary a new committee with instructions and reporting criteria can be set. Does this seem correct?No bylaws at all?? Or do you mean no bylaws dealing with formation and population of committees? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 22, 2012 at 02:57 AM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 02:57 AM No by-laws at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 22, 2012 at 01:20 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 01:20 PM No by-laws at all.Ooo, that puts a new wrinkle on things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted June 22, 2012 at 03:58 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 03:58 PM The chair allowed the group to stand. It was not ratified by vote or motion. No timeline was set nor instructions were given. It was an ad hoc group not a standing committee. No by-laws exist. I am trying to find out if it is customary for chair to appoint or if it requires a motion and vote as commom practice. RONR pg.495 line11-20 It is my belief this should be settled according to RONR pg. 502 line 26 to pg. 503 line 2. This is because the commission will have a new chairman and a change in membership. If necessary a new committee with instructions and reporting criteria can be set. Does this seem correct?Ooo, that puts a new wrinkle on things.Does it? If there were bylaws, either they would give the chair authority to create and fill a committee or not. If they did, great, if they didn't, seems to me a point of order would have to be timely raised. Lacking that, the regular chair came back and approved the committee/group. The assembly did not object and would not their silence imply consent?Now we know there are NO bylaws, so the chair doesn't gain the authority through them to appoint committees. So, again, a point of order must be timely raised. It wasn't. The regular chair OK'd this group/committee, and by my reckoning, so did the assembly. I can't see how this isn't a legit ad-hoc committee, and I thought whether it was or not was the original question.The notion that page p 502 can be used to settle the original question doesn't make sense to me. That reference refers to a special committee when the governing assembly ceases to exist. A new chair and a few new members is not ceasing to exist. Besides, that cite refers to committees. Again, i thought the question was is it a committee or not, an "ad-hoc group" or not.Given that there are no bylaws governing establishing committees, and that this group/committee was formed over multiple meetings with plenty of opportunity for someone to raise an objection, and that they were given some sort of task to do or study, seems to me, even if the actual word was not used, it's a committee. If the assembly wants to do away with it, simply move to discharge it. But I cannot see that p 502 gives reason to disband it.Or maybe I'm missing the point of this thread entirely. I just don't see where the grey is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 22, 2012 at 05:14 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 05:14 PM You missed the point. The body which appointed it expires and is replaced by new appointments and a new chair. It starts over like a city council. The group had no requirements to report. So I contend that RONR pg. 502 line 26 to pg. 503 line2 applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted June 22, 2012 at 06:05 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 06:05 PM ...TC, I say it's a new wrinkle because, notwithstanding what I have said on other occasions, there's something loopy because in a real sense, without bylaws, the organization does not exist at all. Yet Mr Shaver speaks of its "annual commission makeover" (post #1) and says "a new chairman and commission will be seated in Sept" (post #5), &c.If this "commission" actually has no bylaws, perhaps its organizing document is a statute or some other government directive. MR SHAVER! What about it? What document says you have a commission at all? Who says it has a makeover in September, and where.NExt to this, their "study group" is inconsequential. But on that subject, which is like playing a waltz on the deck of the Titanic as it sinks...Mr Shaver seems to think it's not a committee, but he wants advice as to whether the commission should treat the group as if it were one.MR SHAVER (post #11): P. 495 only helps if the meeting decided, at the meeting a year ago, to have the chairman pro tem appoint this, er, group, or committee. If not, then the chairman had no authority to appoint a committee or study group, and he did not. At the next meeting, what did the regular chairman do about this group or committee? IF he did, indeed, do nothing about it, then I lean towards the idea it's jsut a bunch of guys, as Guest Edgar says (post #12), no matter what they walk, talk, and quack like.tctheatc (post #13):If the temp chair had no authority to appoint anything, then he did not appoint anything. No point of order would even be appropriate, or even necessary. No the group was not approved by the regular chair later: he was essentially oblivious to it.-- Or he did agree at the following meeting. As Trina points out, Mr Shaver's reports of what happened are inconsistent, and he will have to please straighten this out. MR SHAVER. Your turn again!tctheatc (post #19):P. 502 - 3 applies in that "in a body ... in which the terms of some or all of its members expire at a definite time, ... like a city council or a board of directors" -- and it seems to me that the case for this bylaws-free commission -- "a special committee expires with the body that appointed it." You may argue that this commission will not expire in September, it will merely have a "makeover" -- but neither will a city council or a board of directors (see p. 488 - 489). I find the wording on p. 502 - 3 unclear or misleading, or both, which is why I asked about it (posts #6 and #9).Mr Shaver (post #20), p. 502 -3 -- or anything else in RONR -- does not apply at all, if this is just some nebulous "group." RONR doesn't mention such groups.. The book has nothing to say about them. If the commission were to decide that is -- at least in essence, as tctheatc contends, with some merit -- a committee, however sloppily it was formed a year ago, then yes, p. 502 - 3 will apply, and the study group will dissolve with the commission.If it actually studied anything, and has any report to make, you'll want to get that report before the commission expires. or the report, and anything else useful that the study group might have done, will be so much toilet paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted June 22, 2012 at 06:49 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 06:49 PM Good points all, Gary, and I follow.I suppose it comes down to the makeup of this parent assembly. I did not take the comments about the "change in membership" to mean that this commission or whatever it is was ceasing to exist, but just new people filling positions. Same as a church council exists year to year even if the officers change, and the committees continue to exist. I agree that the OP has provided conflicting statements from the start that make it tough, and no, I did not miss the point as was asserted in post 20. I very much get what happens to the committee.But I do appreciate, Gary, your points about the bylaws. Very helpful in understanding another point of view. There simply isn't enough straight dope here to accurately understand the scenario. I'm dropping out having enjoyed the mental exercise so far... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 22, 2012 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 08:12 PM It is a City Commission. Created by a city resolution. For better or worse. We are told " all commission meetings shall be conducted using Roberts Rules of Order", nothing more. No by laws, no other directives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted June 22, 2012 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 08:41 PM Secondly, I say that this "group" has no more status than any random collection of members. So your organization is free to ignore it. It can't issue a report because, parliamentarily, it doesn't exist.Why would it not have more status than a group of whiners who get together to bitch & moan?No by-laws at all.Ooo, that puts a new wrinkle on things.There simply isn't enough straight dope here to accurately understand the scenario. I'm dropping out having enjoyed the mental exercise so far...I don't want tc to think I was ignoring his question. My first inclination was to reply that my answer may have been a bit flippant but, after reading that there are no bylaws, I was a bit more comfortable with my reply. Now it appears that there are, indeed, governing documents though they go by different names (e.g. municipal code). So, like our ATC, I'm dropping out . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phil Shaver Posted June 22, 2012 at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 at 10:41 PM Please do not assume there are any other giverning documents, no municipal codes or anything by another name. The only directions are those posted Roberts Rules of Order. You all want to assume something which is not there. It is only about applying RRO. There is nothing more to understand or know. Why is this so hard for you? What do you need to know? What straight dope do you need to know? I am mistified. There is no more. A city council appointed commission with its committees or alias groups, this commission operates under Roberts Rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.