Chairmans Authority in a Caucus of the main body

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

Provision for a caucus is established in Bylaw and Constitution of the main body to form a caucus of particular titled persons of the main body. There is provision for electing a Chairman to the caucus. However, there are no rules that define the Rights and Duties or the authority of the Chairman of the caucus. What provision exists in Roberts Rules to govern the Chairman's authority in the Caucus ?

 

Here is the Rule in ByLaw as written: ( I have replaced the organization name with the word BODY)

 

In addition to the above standing committees, there shall be a Caucus of the organization Chairmen and a Caucus of Organization Committeemen. Each caucus shall choose a caucus chairman and caucus vice chairman every two (2) years prior to the Annual Meeting of the State Wide Committee. Each caucus shall meet at least four (4) times each year in conjunction with the meetings of the Executive Board and Annual Meeting. Each chairman (or vice chairman, in the absence of the chairman) shall report on the activities of the caucus at each meeting of the Body Executive Board and at the Annual Meeting of the State Body.

 

This is the only official reference to the Chairman of the Caucus. So, where does the caucus chair derive their power and what are the rules that govern their latitude?

 

 

Any help on this is appreciated

 

[Edgar Guest]

The default authority of a chair is to preside at meetings. Any additional (administrative) authority will be found (or not) in your rules.

[Josh Martin]

Provision for a caucus is established in Bylaw and Constitution of the main body to form a caucus of particular titled persons of the main body. There is provision for electing a Chairman to the caucus. However, there are no rules that define the Rights and Duties or the authority of the Chairman of the caucus. What provision exists in Roberts Rules to govern the Chairman's authority in the Caucus ?

 

The position of chairman is discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 448-457.

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

So, here then is where I am left. If the Bylaws do not give direct authority for the Chairman of a Caucus of the main body to create standing or ad-hoc committees then he is relegated to the process as defined in RONR under the description mentioned above?

 

Is it arguable that a caucus is the same as sub-committee or an ad-hoc committee? Would that not give the Chair of the Caucus the authority to create a special sub-committee that reports back to the Chair of the Caucus?

[Edgar Guest]

Is it arguable that a caucus is the same as sub-committee or an ad-hoc committee? Would that not give the Chair of the Caucus the authority to create a special sub-committee that reports back to the Chair of the Caucus?

 

RONR discusses caucuses on pp.605-607 in Chapter XIX, "Conventions". The term seems to have at least two possible meanings.

 

It's quite possible your bylaws are misusing the term. Or are using it in a non-conventional sense. Would it make a difference, for instance, if the word "committee" was substituted for the word "caucus"?

 

Perhaps you could research the history of its inclusion in your bylaws?

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

agreed let's say we should really be calling this "caucus" a "Standing committee". Does the Chairman of the "Standing committee"  have the authority to form a sub-committee for a specific purpose without direction from the assembly of the "Standing committee" ?

[Edgar Guest]

Does the Chairman of the "Standing committee"  have the authority to form a sub-committee for a specific purpose without direction from the assembly of the "Standing committee" ?

 

The motion to commit (i.e. to form an ad hoc committee) requires a majority vote.

 

But I fear this is getting into the arcana of parliamentary procedure so stay tuned. The experts should soon be back from their weekend excursions.

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

I appreciate your assistance - staying tuned

[Guest Nancy N.]

I appreciate your assistance - staying tuned

I'm pretty sure that posts 2 and 3, and the first sentence of post 7, told you whatever we can tell you. But to lay it out plain: no, no chairman, of anything, hhas the authority to create subcommittees, unless your bylaws or the law of the land or the state or the municipality or your local Communist Party cell or an edict from heaven gives him that authority.

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

Nancy - many thanks - I often wonder if we should not be calling this "group" the communist party. Many thanks

[Gary c Tesser]

Nancy - many thanks - I often wonder if we should not be calling this "group" the communist party. Many thanks

(Maybe now we can find out about that wrath we keep hearing about.)

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

RONR (10 ed.) p. 480 l.11,17 - does this not give authority ?

 

 

Here is the Rule in Bylaw as written: ( I have replaced the organization name with the word BODY) - it is under the Standing Committee Section

 

 

 

In addition to the above standing committees, there shall be a Caucus of the organization Chairmen and a Caucus of Organization Committeemen. Each caucus shall choose a caucus chairman and caucus vice chairman every two (2) years prior to the Annual Meeting of the State Wide Committee. Each caucus shall meet at least four (4) times each year in conjunction with the meetings of the Executive Board and Annual Meeting. Each chairman (or vice chairman, in the absence of the chairman) shall report on the activities of the caucus at each meeting of the Body Executive Board and at the Annual Meeting of the State Body.

 

 

 

This is the only official reference to the Chairman of the Caucus. So, where does the caucus chair derive their power and what are the rules that govern their latitude?

[Gary c Tesser]

RONR (10 ed.) p. 480 l.11,17 - does this not give authority ?

Here is the Rule in Bylaw as written: ( I have replaced the organization name with the word BODY) - it is under the Standing Committee Section

In addition to the above standing committees, there shall be a Caucus of the organization Chairmen and a Caucus of Organization Committeemen. Each caucus shall choose a caucus chairman and caucus vice chairman every two (2) years prior to the Annual Meeting of the State Wide Committee. Each caucus shall meet at least four (4) times each year in conjunction with the meetings of the Executive Board and Annual Meeting. Each chairman (or vice chairman, in the absence of the chairman) shall report on the activities of the caucus at each meeting of the Body Executive Board and at the Annual Meeting of the State Body.

This is the only official reference to the Chairman of the Caucus. So, where does the caucus chair derive their power and what are the rules that govern their latitude?

1. The quotation from RONR, 10th Ed., gives authority for creating subcommittees to the committee itself, not at all to its chairman. Do you disagree that this is what it says?

2. I see nothing anywhere in the quoted snippet from that bylaws that gives the committee chairman any power at all. Sir. Do you?

I'm suspecting now that Mr Nice Guy (his friends call him No More) thinks that the chair of a committee generally has the authority, on his own, to create subcommittees, and maybe other powers ... or ought to. And he wants to know where somebody says that. And I, and others, are saying that nothing in Robert's Rules gives the chairman that authority, and apparently nothing in his bylaws does either.

If that analysis of his psyche, for which I am somewhat less qualified to assert than to give authoritative parlamentary opinions, is accurate, then further elucidation on procedures parliamentrical will be bootless, and our calling calls for us to enquire into what his mommy told him in the cradle that causes him to hold committee chairs in such awe. The pospect intrigues and entices, but alas! is regrettably beyond the scope of this forum.

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

Gary - quite  to the contrary - I am the one that fights for the rule of law. I am looking at all of the potential angles that the opposition will attempt to use as an excuse to form this committee illegally for the purpose of further weakening the power of its body members. I am on the right side on this one. Just doing my home work. I am one of the good guys, just not being nice about it anymore. If they want to play rough, well guess what - so am I ! Truth cannot be hidden for ever, As a former Airborne Infantryman and a solid man of rule and law, my Mother and more so my Father taught me to do what is right not convenient. Again,, and not that I must defend my position against such a juvenile and self exposing analysis, but, I am doing my homework to make sure that when I fire the first shot and call them to the carpet in violation of the rules that I am prepared and ready to bury their sorry @$$

 

Now that said, I accept your apology.

[Gary c Tesser]

Gary - quite to the contrary - I am the one that fights for the rule of law. ...

Now that said, I accept your apology.

Well.

I do apologize for the flippant personal remark. It was impertinent and inappropriate.

And of course I regret causing any offense to someone in Airborne, former or otherwise, if I know what's good for me, which is often not the case but better be now.

Now that said, Mr NoMoMrNiceGuy, please answer the two questions that I began Post 13 with. And then please tell me what, if anything, you see as inaccurate or untrue about the next paragraph (it begins, "I'm suspecting now that ..."). That paragraph is a stab at getting where you're coming from, which I'm still not sure of.

Finally (at least for now), it would help if you would explain what you're looking for when you ask, "So, where does the caucus chair derive their power and what are the rules that govern their latitude?" (at the end of Post 12).

If you would be so kind, Spec.

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

Gary - I completely agree with you. You have to understand that I am dealing with a large State level political organization that have "sharks" in the water at all times. They have an innate ability to twist the rules instead of living in them so I am looking for any angle they may use. I do not wish to abuse the generosity of the persons in the forum and believe I have accomplished my mission. We shall see.

 

answer to question 1 of yours. seems the same to me and to number 2. - I do not see it either.

 

Thanks again for your input. It is valued.

[Gary c Tesser]

... answer to question 1 of yours. seems the same to me and to number 2. - I do not see it either.

Aha. Thank you.

Thanks again for your input. It is valued.

You're welcome. Good luck. I'd be interested in how it goes.

[Guest NoMoMrNiceGuy]

Well here is the result. As expected the Chairman of the Caucus asked for legal opinion. The counsel again has shown he is either ignorant or on the take. Probably both. The chair declared that he had authority to form he committee and proceeded along the way. Here is the real kicker. When presented with the fact that a subcommittee could not be formed for the same purpose of a standing committee he denied the accuracy of the fact and kept on walking down his path. Seems to me that when RR states --> RONR (10ed) p. 474 l. 28,30 --> A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee. Well guess what? We have a standing committee to deal with the same issues his special committee is designed for.

 

I guess the take away from this is that rules do you no good if all that govern and are governed do not operate and follow the same.

[Edgar Guest]

I guess the take away from this is that rules do you no good if all that govern and are governed do not operate and follow the same.

 

Did you raise a point of order? Did the chair rule on the point of order? Did you appeal the chair's ruling? Did the assembly vote on the appeal?

[NoMoMrNiceGuy]

Yes I did raise a point of order. He ruled I that II was not correct - "Everyone knows a chair can appoint subcommittees" was his quote. I did appeal it and he again stated that he was in the right. Finally I made a motion that the members decide and to my utter amazement they sided with the chair. Corruption is a virus that needs to be removed!