Marie

[Guest Guest]

A multi-part motion has been presented to our Board of Trustees to establish a "Working Group" for oversight of one aspect of our organization.  The first part of this motion names specific names to be included in this group.  The remaining parts list the duties and responsibilities of this "Working Group".  Here are my questions:

Our bylaws give our President exclusive responsibility for assigning committees.  It seems to me that the above motion is improper, as, even though the title "Working Group" is given, it is essentially a committee. Therefore, the maker of the motion cannot name those he/she wants on this "Working Group".  Is that a proper interpretation?  If the first part of the motion is improper, the rest of the motion would be out of order, as those points depend on the passage of the first point.  Again, is that a proper interpretation?

[Guest Nancy N.]

Some thoughts.

 

1.  Why is the discussion thread's title "Marie"?  I was maybe looking forward to a discussion of the parliamentary aspects of dealing with a fellow member you (Guest_Guest) were having trouble with.

 

2.  The "Working Group" might be a committee ... or it might not.  It much depends on those duties and responsibilities, and other characteristics attached to it that might adequately differentiate its nature from that of a committee.

 

Frankly I myself am skeptical too.  But skepticism is not  proof.  I would ask the presenter of the multi-part motion how he or she justifies saying that this is not a committee, and be willing to hear his or her response with an open mind.  (I try often to have one. I'm sure there's one lying around here somewhere, just needs to be dusted off a little.)

 

I'm thinking at the moment that the parliamentary procedure to follow (always a good bet, here on the world's premiere Internet parliamentary forum) is to let the proposer of the multi-part motion to make the motion, and then, since you (Guest_Guest) smell a rat, raise a Point of Order, that this supposed "working group" is really a committee, and, as such, has its members appointed by the President, not the motion itself.  The presiding officer will rule as to whether this objection is right or not ("well-taken" or "not well-taken"; apparently the alternative phrasing, "poorly-taken", has been out of vogue for some centuries), and whoever disagrees with the ruling is likely to appeal from the ruling to the membership, who will then (after as much discussion as it needs, within limitations) decide the matter by vote.

 

I'm inclined to agree with the second interpretation.  But note that that's just my opinion, on a matter of logical thought, not something out of RONR, although it is somewhat informed by the eminent Principles of Interpretation, elegantly laid out in a mere four pages or so around p. 588, so it might be worth no more than the pixels it's printed on. 

[Timothy]

In fact, no the maker of the motion cannot name whoever he wants to be on the Working Group, because the motion could be amended. However, calling the group a "Working Group" rather than a committee does seem to take control of it out of the hands of the president and puts it back in the hands of the assembly. But as for the motion itself, I believe it could be divided such that the portion of the motion that establishes the working group is handled separately from the portion that names people to serve on the working group. 

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . calling the group a "Working Group" rather than a committee does seem to take control of it out of the hands of the president and puts it back in the hands of the assembly.

 

I'm not so sure.

 

"If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

 

- A. Lincoln (attributed)

[Timothy]

I'm not so sure.

 

"If you call the tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"

 

- A. Lincoln (attributed)

 

When I was in college, I worked for a company located on the Mississippi River and the river was in flood stage. They spent a lot of money to move a hill and create a berm in order to keep the water out. It looked an awful lot like a levee, but the Army Corps of Engineers regulates all levees built along the Mississippi River, so because time wouldn't allow them to get the proper approvals, they built a berm instead.

[Josh Martin]

In fact, no the maker of the motion cannot name whoever he wants to be on the Working Group, because the motion could be amended. However, calling the group a "Working Group" rather than a committee does seem to take control of it out of the hands of the president and puts it back in the hands of the assembly. But as for the motion itself, I believe it could be divided such that the portion of the motion that establishes the working group is handled separately from the portion that names people to serve on the working group. 

 

Generally speaking, I'd say that if it is in the nature of a committee, it's a committee, regardless of what the motion maker calls it. I could see an exception if, for instance, "working groups" are actually defined in the organization's rules.

 

I also don't agree that the motion could be divided. A motion can only be divided if each part can stand independently, and the part of the motion which appoints the committee's members is meaningless if the part which establishes the committee is defeated. Tools such as the motion to Amend or the device of filling blanks could be used to accomplish a similar purpose (if it were not for the fact that the organization's bylaws grant the President exclusive authority to appoint all committees).

[Timothy]

Generally speaking, I'd say that if it is in the nature of a committee, it's a committee, regardless of what the motion maker calls it. I could see an exception if, for instance, "working groups" are actually defined in the organization's rules.

 

I also don't agree that the motion could be divided. A motion can only be divided if each part can stand independently, and the part of the motion which appoints the committee's members is meaningless if the part which establishes the committee is defeated. Tools such as the motion to Amend or the device of filling blanks could be used to accomplish a similar purpose (if it were not for the fact that the organization's bylaws grant the President exclusive authority to appoint all committees).

 

I'll agree with your statement that the motion shouldn't be divided on the grounds that who is elected is meaningless if the working group isn't established. I'm not so sure that I agree that it is a committee, even if the person making a motion didn't use that term. What if, for example, the motion were "that Bob paint the building and the treasurer be authorized to give Bob money for paint"? Is Bob a committee? Perhaps. Would it make a difference if the motion were "that we hire Acme Painting Company to paint the building"? Is Acme Painting Company a committee? Probably not. So, if the motion were, "that Bob, Jon, and Kim be elected as a working group to paint the building," it isn't necessarily a committee.

 

Ultimately, it is up to the organization to decide whether there is such a thing as a working group and how that differs from a committee, but unless the organization has authorized the president to decide who is hired, it seems likely that a working group can exist and it is different from a committee.

[Edgar Guest]

So, if the motion were, "that Bob, Jon, and Kim be elected as a working group to paint the building," it isn't necessarily a committee.

 

But this "working group" wasn't formed for a single task, it was formed "for oversight of one aspect of our organization". It seems to me that it's looking like a duck and walking like a duck and talking like a duck . . . 

[Timothy]

But this "working group" wasn't formed for a single task, it was formed "for oversight of one aspect of our organization". It seems to me that it's looking like a duck and walking like a duck and talking like a duck . . . 

 

We weren't told oversight of what. It could be the working group has oversight of cleaning the restrooms or something else we wouldn't normally expect a committee to be responsible for.

[Gary Novosielski]

In any case the decision on each of these thoughtful questions will ultimately be made by the organization itself, and it seems to me that, so far, nobody has come up with a better method for arriving at those decisions than did Nancy N. in Post #2.

[Josh Martin]

I'll agree with your statement that the motion shouldn't be divided on the grounds that who is elected is meaningless if the working group isn't established. I'm not so sure that I agree that it is a committee, even if the person making a motion didn't use that term. What if, for example, the motion were "that Bob paint the building and the treasurer be authorized to give Bob money for paint"? Is Bob a committee? Perhaps. Would it make a difference if the motion were "that we hire Acme Painting Company to paint the building"? Is Acme Painting Company a committee? Probably not. So, if the motion were, "that Bob, Jon, and Kim be elected as a working group to paint the building," it isn't necessarily a committee.

 

Ultimately, it is up to the organization to decide whether there is such a thing as a working group and how that differs from a committee, but unless the organization has authorized the president to decide who is hired, it seems likely that a working group can exist and it is different from a committee.

 

As I said, if it is in the nature of a committee, it's a committee. You're quite right that it might not be in the nature of a committee. I'm not saying every group of people is a committee, but I am saying that the member can't get around the rule in the bylaws by calling a committee by a different name.

 

My understanding from the original post was that this working group was "essentially a committee," since that's what the OP said.