Handling an improper committee report

[Sean Hunt]

What is the correct procedure for a member to object to the content of a committee report on the grounds that the report was not properly adopted by the committee?* Any debate or ruling on the matter would, naturally enough, have to refer to proceedings at the committee, which ordinarily would mean that the Point of Order could not be entertained by the assembly. Yet to accept any ostensible committee report without admitting challenges to its validity would be rather poor, and it would often be impractical to ask the committee to review the matter, and if it was a special committee, then it would be unable to do so of its own initiative.

So how would this best be handled? Should the chair admit the Point of Order but refer the matter to the assembly on the grounds that he doesn't have the evidence to judge the matter, and allow it to be sorted out in debate? Should he question the committee members to ascertain what happened and deliver a ruling? Should he rule the Point of Order not well taken unless it comes from the committee?

* By this I mean something like a member of the committee saying "This document is different than what was agreed to at the committee." rather than a point such as "The motion to adopt the report was actually adopted on a tie vote."

[Josh Martin]

What is the correct procedure for a member to object to the content of a committee report on the grounds that the report was not properly adopted by the committee?* Any debate or ruling on the matter would, naturally enough, have to refer to proceedings at the committee, which ordinarily would mean that the Point of Order could not be entertained by the assembly. Yet to accept any ostensible committee report without admitting challenges to its validity would be rather poor, and it would often be impractical to ask the committee to review the matter, and if it was a special committee, then it would be unable to do so of its own initiative.

So how would this best be handled? Should the chair admit the Point of Order but refer the matter to the assembly on the grounds that he doesn't have the evidence to judge the matter, and allow it to be sorted out in debate? Should he question the committee members to ascertain what happened and deliver a ruling? Should he rule the Point of Order not well taken unless it comes from the committee?

* By this I mean something like a member of the committee saying "This document is different than what was agreed to at the committee." rather than a point such as "The motion to adopt the report was actually adopted on a tie vote."

It seems quite possible that the rule against making allusions to the committee's deliberations is intended only to apply to discussion on the committee's report, and not to prevent anyone from ever talking about the committee's deliberations. So from a purely parliamentary perspective, I'm not sure there is any reason this would need to be handled differently from another Point of Order.

Nonetheless, I think it would be difficult for the assembly to resolve this debate as a practical matter, since presumably most of the assembly has no knowledge of the committee's deliberations. The best I can think of would be for the chair to refer the Point of Order to the assembly, which would then refer it to a special committee to investigate the issue. The assembly might also wish to task the committee with making recommendations regarding the committee's members, if necessary.

Things might be trickier if the committee met in executive session.

[Sean Hunt]

It seems quite possible that the rule against making allusions to the committee's deliberations is intended only to apply to discussion on the committee's report, and not to prevent anyone from ever talking about the committee's deliberations. So from a purely parliamentary perspective, I'm not sure there is any reason this would need to be handled differently from another Point of Order.

Given its (probable) history as a rule inherited from Parliament, I find that unlikely (EDIT: Although I'll agree that the text of the rule does not go as far as I originally thought). It has long been the rule in the Canadian House of Commons, for certain (and I have no indication that it is otherwise in the mother House), that the conduct of business in a committee is unimpeachable in the House unless the committee itself chooses to report on the matter. This rule notably includes cases where the minority feel that the majority has unfairly treated them in committee proceedings (such as by inappropriately ruling on an appealed point of order), leaving the minority little recourse. It has been consistently ruled, even up to this Parliament, that the House will not take action on the proceedings in a committee unless the matter has been referred to the House by the committee.

However, in the context of the House of Commons, I would be truly surprised if this indicated issue came up, because the members of the Commons generally do not suffer the illusion that it is acceptable for the committee to approve general ideas and for the chairman to fill in the rest of the content later, which is a trend I see disturbingly often in the groups I am a part of.

Nonetheless, I think it would be difficult for the assembly to resolve this debate as a practical matter, since presumably most of the assembly has no knowledge of the committee's deliberations. The best I can think of would be for the chair to refer the Point of Order to the assembly, which would then refer it to a special committee to investigate the issue. The assembly might also wish to task the committee with making recommendations regarding the committee's members, if necessary.

Things might be trickier if the committee met in executive session.

Well, I would hope that executive session would not be excessively much of an issue, since "did the committee agree to this report?" is knowledge that, by virtue of being presented to the assembly, must escape the executive session. The assembly could also, in electing to appoint such a committee, direct that the members of the former committee reveal the proceedings to the investigators, as the deliberations of the committee in executive session, while normally kept secret, are still ultimately under the power of the parent assembly and so it may direct that they be made less private that they would otherwise be.

Additionally, while this procedure would be appropriate in an unusual case, what is the chair's usual recourse if this occurs often, or what should happen if the report of the special committee is questioned in the same manner?

[Josh Martin]

Additionally, while this procedure would be appropriate in an unusual case, what is the chair's usual recourse if this occurs often, or what should happen if the report of the special committee is questioned in the same manner?

If this is happening consistently, raising a Point of Order for each individual report seems even less prudent. It's clear that the assembly either has a bunch of committee chairs that need to be replaced (in which case it should do so) or the assembly feels that the committee chairs should be given more latitude with the content of committee reports (in which case the assembly should adopt appropriate special rules of order).

[Sean Hunt]

If this is happening consistently, raising a Point of Order for each individual report seems even less prudent. It's clear that the assembly either has a bunch of committee chairs that need to be replaced (in which case it should do so) or the assembly feels that the committee chairs should be given more latitude with the content of committee reports (in which case the assembly should adopt appropriate special rules of order).

Certainly, the assembly should take steps to avoid this situation in the future, but this does not help resolve the assembly's immediate need to resolve it.

[Josh Martin]

Certainly, the assembly should take steps to avoid this situation in the future, but this does not help resolve the assembly's immediate need to resolve it.

If the assembly insists on settling the issue immediately, I suppose your suggestion about questioning the committee's members is the best if there is disagreement on what the committee's members have agreed to, although the situation will need to be handled very delicately to avoid violating the rules of decorum.

[Dan Honemann]

What is the correct procedure for a member to object to the content of a committee report on the grounds that the report was not properly adopted by the committee?* Any debate or ruling on the matter would, naturally enough, have to refer to proceedings at the committee, which ordinarily would mean that the Point of Order could not be entertained by the assembly. Yet to accept any ostensible committee report without admitting challenges to its validity would be rather poor, and it would often be impractical to ask the committee to review the matter, and if it was a special committee, then it would be unable to do so of its own initiative.

So how would this best be handled? Should the chair admit the Point of Order but refer the matter to the assembly on the grounds that he doesn't have the evidence to judge the matter, and allow it to be sorted out in debate? Should he question the committee members to ascertain what happened and deliver a ruling? Should he rule the Point of Order not well taken unless it comes from the committee?

* By this I mean something like a member of the committee saying "This document is different than what was agreed to at the committee." rather than a point such as "The motion to adopt the report was actually adopted on a tie vote."

It seems to me that additional facts are needed in order to provide an answer. For instance, I think that, at an absolute minimum, we need to know whether or not the reporting member made a motion in behalf of the committee or simply made a report for informational purposes only, and how what was moved (or simply reported) differs from a member's recollection as to what was agreed to.

In any event, I sincerely doubt that raising a Point of Order will be appropriate.

[Dan Honemann]

By the way, to say as I did that “additional facts are needed in order to provide an answer” is to grossly understate the problem, and I regret (or undoubtedly will regret) having posted my response.

This is one of those situations where, in order to make an informed decision as to what, exactly, ought to be done, one needs to have an intimate knowledge of all of the facts. Since we have no way of meeting this requirement, further discussion must necessarily be of a very general nature or risk causing a great deal of frustration, with the proffered facts tending to slip and slide.

[AnonymousBlue]

In practical terms, the consequences of the problem posed are greatly limited. Indeed, the pertinent consequences seem to be limited to two:

If the committee chair or other reporting member, by direction of the committee, moves a motion that another committee member claims was not in fact adopted by the committee--at least in that form--, suppose the objecting committee member is right. The reporting committee member could move the same motion under New Business, but the motion would then require a second (unnecessary when a motion is made by direction of a committee). So the direct parliamentary consequence of the improperly made motion is two-fold -- it has been made without a second, and it is being taken up under committee reports rather than under New Business.

So far as the persuasive effect on the assembly of the alleged fact that the motion was recommended by the committee is concerned, the dissenting members of the committee are free to speak against the motion in debate. RONR (11th ed.), p. 528, ll. 4-8. If, say, there were 3 members of the committee and two speak against the motion, then even though they are precluded from making allusion to the committee deliberations, it should be pretty clear to any reasonably intelligent assembly member who has been paying attention that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[Dan Honemann]

Please note that we frown upon anonymous responses, especially those posted in the Advanced Discussion Forum. Lack of accountability tends to encourage a greater degree of carelessness.

[Guest Edgar]

Please note that we frown upon anonymous responses, especially those posted in the Advanced Discussion Forum. Lack of accountability tends to encourage a greater degree of carelessness.

Although in this instance "AnonymousBlue" is a member with a "paper" trail of several posts. So it's more of a pseudonym than an . . . anonym?

[Dan Honemann]

Although in this instance "AnonymousBlue" is a member with a "paper" trail of several posts. So it's more of a pseudonym than an . . . anonym?

This "paper trail" is of no consequence. We all know who you are, we know who Nancy is, we know who J.J. is, but we have no idea who Anonymous Blue is - hence no accountability.

Of course, this doesn't mean that you, Nancy, and J.J. shouldn't be using your real names when you post.

[Steven Britton]

What is the correct procedure for a member to object to the content of a committee report on the grounds that the report was not properly adopted by the committee?* Any debate or ruling on the matter would, naturally enough, have to refer to proceedings at the committee, which ordinarily would mean that the Point of Order could not be entertained by the assembly. Yet to accept any ostensible committee report without admitting challenges to its validity would be rather poor, and it would often be impractical to ask the committee to review the matter, and if it was a special committee, then it would be unable to do so of its own initiative.

So how would this best be handled? Should the chair admit the Point of Order but refer the matter to the assembly on the grounds that he doesn't have the evidence to judge the matter, and allow it to be sorted out in debate? Should he question the committee members to ascertain what happened and deliver a ruling? Should he rule the Point of Order not well taken unless it comes from the committee?

Personnally, I would not move a point of order. In its stead, I would rise, and perhaps as a request for information ask, "Did the committee agree to the contents of this report by a majority vote at a properly called meeting; or, did all members of the committee agree to the report's contents? If I wasn't satisfied with the answer, perhaps I would move that the report be recommitted. See RONR, p. 503 (lines 14 - 28).

[NCSUSBCA]

In reference to what Steve Britton wrote on 2/2/2013:

 

We have a similar situation. The committee report was presented to our board on 7/13/2013. It was highly derogatory of several board members. It is now 7/19/2013. One of the offended board members has demanded that this report be stricken from the official record and all discussion that arose during a formal board meeting also be stricken from the minutes.

 

How do we handle this situation? The committee is scheduled to meet on 8/4/2013. Should I, as board parliamentarian, bring this issue before the committee for a vote such as noted in Steve's remarks to determine if the committee wants to have this report removed from the record? Is the time between the submission of the original report and the scheduled committee meeting so far apart that this cannot be brought before the committee for a vote? Since the board meeting was formally adjourned on 7/14/2013, can this situation even be considered for a vote? Can the minutes be amended in such a way at our next scheduled board meeting in September to remove the section concerning the heated discussion?

 

Yes, quite a few questions, but this matter is going to be hanging over our heads like Damocle's sword if some action is not taken concerning this matter.

 

Many thanks.

[George Mervosh]

In reference to what Steve Britton wrote on 2/2/2013:

 

We have a similar situation. The committee report was presented to our board on 7/13/2013. It was highly derogatory of several board members. It is now 7/19/2013. One of the offended board members has demanded that this report be stricken from the official record and all discussion that arose during a formal board meeting also be stricken from the minutes.

 

How do we handle this situation? The committee is scheduled to meet on 8/4/2013. Should I, as board parliamentarian, bring this issue before the committee for a vote such as noted in Steve's remarks to determine if the committee wants to have this report removed from the record? Is the time between the submission of the original report and the scheduled committee meeting so far apart that this cannot be brought before the committee for a vote? Since the board meeting was formally adjourned on 7/14/2013, can this situation even be considered for a vote? Can the minutes be amended in such a way at our next scheduled board meeting in September to remove the section concerning the heated discussion?

 

Yes, quite a few questions, but this matter is going to be hanging over our heads like Damocle's sword if some action is not taken concerning this matter.

 

Many thanks.

 

Committee reports are simply filed along with the other records and documents of the board and discussion should never be included in the minutes, ever.  Stop inserting what was said into the minutes from now on, and please advise what this "official record" is.

[NCSUSBCA]

Thanks, George.

 

Firstly, I appreciate the quick response.

 

Let me elaborate by what I mean by "official record" and offer other information.

 

Each board member receives a copy of all committee reports that are submitted by the committee chairs. These reports are retained by the board members and are also filed as permanent documentation by the recording secretary.

 

The offended board members wants this report to be completely withdrawn and not be a part of the retained documentation. She wants it to disappear, like Jimmy Hoffa. Steve's point about whether the committee itself approved the submission of this report to the board may be very critical to the situation. Usually, the committee chair writes the report and presents it to the board. In this situation, not only did the board as a whole see the report for the first time during the board meeting, the committee itself saw the report for the first time and was not aware of the content.

 

So, should this be brought to that committee for a vote on whether, after the fact, it approves the submission of the report? And if the committee decides not to approve the committee report, how should this be handled? Do we gather up all copies and detroy them?

 

As far as the minutes are concerned, I have not yet seen a copy. I have contacted the recording secretary to determine what is and isn't in those minutes. Your point about discussion not being a part of the minutes is on the mark. They should not be part of the minutes, but these things do sometimes slip into that document. I have to see what is in that document.

[George Mervosh]

Thanks, George.

 

Firstly, I appreciate the quick response.

 

Let me elaborate by what I mean by "official record" and offer other information.

 

Each board member receives a copy of all committee reports that are submitted by the committee chairs. These reports are retained by the board members and are also filed as permanent documentation by the recording secretary.

 

The offended board members wants this report to be completely withdrawn and not be a part of the retained documentation. She wants it to disappear, like Jimmy Hoffa. Steve's point about whether the committee itself approved the submission of this report to the board may be very critical to the situation. Usually, the committee chair writes the report and presents it to the board. In this situation, not only did the board as a whole see the report for the first time during the board meeting, the committee itself saw the report for the first time and was not aware of the content.

 

So, should this be brought to that committee for a vote on whether, after the fact, it approves the submission of the report? And if the committee decides not to approve the committee report, how should this be handled? Do we gather up all copies and detroy them?

 

As far as the minutes are concerned, I have not yet seen a copy. I have contacted the recording secretary to determine what is and isn't in those minutes. Your point about discussion not being a part of the minutes is on the mark. They should not be part of the minutes, but these things do sometimes slip into that document. I have to see what is in that document.

 

RONR states "Except as noted in this paragraph, a report of a board or committee can contain only what has been agreed to by a majority vote at a regular or properly called meeting of which every member has been notified (or at an adjournment of one of these meetings, pp. 93–94)—where a quorum of the board or committee was present. A presentation of facts or recommendations made merely upon separate consultation with every member of a board must be described thus to the parent assembly, and not as an official report of the board (see also pp. 486–87). In the case of a committee, however, if it is impractical to bring its members together for a meeting, the report of the committee can contain what has been agreed to by every one of its members."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 503

 

If the committee in question did not or will not agree to the contents of the submitted report then it is not official and can be discarded.  It's best to advise them to indeed make a determination and, if necessary, prepare a new and proper report.  Reports should not be derogatory to begin with, rather they should be factual (which could come off as derogatory but as long as it's factual) and include any recommendations the committee might have.

[Guest Guest]

Thank you. This will settle the situation, and I appreciate your comments.