Standing v. Special Committees

[mikalac]

Our bylaws specify two committees: Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (ADR). The Board controls their operation, not the owners, per the bylaws. Words like "permanent", "standing", "special", etc. don't exist in the bylaws. There is no other language in the bylaws regarding committees. I regard these two committees as "Standing" by virtue of their being in the bylaws per p. 491 in Robert.

 

Past Boards have created several other committees, which it calls "Standing/Permanent" Committees. They behave like Standing Committees in that they have existed for years and they report to the Board. However, page 491 of Robert, says that any new Standing Committee can be created only by the owners, so I have always considered all the committees other than the ARC and ADR as "special", although they existed for years and behave like Standing Committees in spite of custom. Am I correct?

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Our bylaws specify two committees: Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee (ADR). The Board controls their operation, not the owners, per the bylaws. Words like "permanent", "standing", "special", etc. don't exist in the bylaws. There is no other language in the bylaws regarding committees. I regard these two committees as "Standing" by virtue of their being in the bylaws per p. 491 in Robert.

 

Past Boards have created several other committees, which it calls "Standing/Permanent" Committees. They behave like Standing Committees in that they have existed for years and they report to the Board. However, page 491 of Robert, says that any new Standing Committee can be created only by the owners, so I have always considered all the committees other than the ARC and ADR as "special", although they existed for years and behave like Standing Committees in spite of custom. Am I correct?

 

No.

[Josh Martin]

However, page 491 of Robert, says that any new Standing Committee can be created only by the owners...

 

This is not correct. In fact, you have it exactly backwards. In the circumstances you describe, new standing committees can be created only by the board (or by amending the bylaws).

 

If the bylaws provide for standing committees, new standing committees cannot be created except by amending the bylaws, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 578)

 

The board can, however, create standing committees of the board, even without authorization in the bylaws. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 485-486)

[Guest Zev]

Although I did not discuss the matter in this thread, I want to put the Board's SC's into the bylaws with rules that prevent the Board from manipulating or eliminating them whenever the committees advocate policies that the Board doesn't want. Although the Board can always ignore the committees' advice, ...

The purpose of having committees is to spread the workload and get thoughtful opinions and advice from other people that have, hopefully, the same interest and goals. Creating a committee that the higher-level group cannot control seems a little bit odd and somewhat counterproductive. If a committee gets into the habit of dissing the board they, the board, may decide to not only ignore their advice but they may even refuse to appoint anyone to those committees. Then the problem goes back to the assembly where I get the impression is where it should be in the first place, if in fact what we have is some kind of free-wheeling board. Perhaps just more frequent reporting of the board to the assembly and getting the assembly's feedback might be a solution. The suggested solution just struck me as a little bit odd. Nevertheless, perhaps this is just my whacky perception.

[Josh Martin]

No, your suggestion is not wacky, but I didn't reveal the whole picture, which might be more persuasive. There are to be no restrictions on committee memberships. Any number can join. That has the advantage of spreading the workload, thereby assisting the Board and themselves, and preventing collusion among a small number of committee members to promote policies that favor themselves and their friends rather than the community as a whole. The Board has no control over committee membership, but the committees report to the Board, which can take their advice in total or in part, or it can ignore it altogether and do whatever it wants within its powers described in the bylaws. The owners (assembly) have no power over the committees. As I said above, putting Standing Committees in the bylaws prevents the Board from abolishing the committees. Therefore, if a Board with strange ideas ignores the recommendations of too many committees, which it now cannot abolish, word will get around that there is something wrong with the current Directors and the owners will take that into account at the next election. If the SC's were left to the Board, it could hide its mischief by abolishing the committees or fire its "uncooperative" members so that the owners might not get onto the Board's bad management until too much damage was done.

 

If you really don't want the board to have any control over these committees (aside from adopting their recommendations or not), why not make them committees of the membership and provide that the committees shall report to the board between meetings of the membership?

 

Additionally, while I don't necessarily have a problem with not having a set limit on committee membership, it also sounds like there is no procedure in place for appointing committee members - it's just whoever wants to join. It would seem preferable to have someone appoint committee members (perhaps the membership, given the distrust for the board). While in practice this may usually work the same way, it's good to have something in place in case someone volunteers who perhaps should not be on a given committee.

[Dan Honemann]

As stated on its Introductory Page, “The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised”.

This discussion is not one concerning what is or is not proper parliamentary procedure under the rules in RONR. As a consequence, we respectfully request that those interested in pursuing this discussion do so by private email, or other means outside of this forum.