Conducting a rules review

[Guest abbyreads]

Hello all!  I'm new to this forum with a question about how to conduct a rules review because frankly, I'm lost.

 

I chair the Rules Committee for my uni's SGA and usually know enough to fulfill my duties, but I'm struggling.  One of our standing committees is in violation of our SGA's bylaws.  Essentially, the bylaw states that one of our standing committees needs to establish certain terms at their first meeting of the semester.  Well, after much debate, when it was clear nothing would pass the committee, they decided to suspend debate indefinitely and asked Rules committee to reconsider the bylaw that has them set standards.  Rules debated it and passed a resolution to abolish the section, to get them out of that quandary and to provide more autonomy.  Well, that resolution failed on the student senate floor tonight.  

 

Because the committee is in violation of the bylaws right now, and because our bylaws also state that Rules committee should review all actions for compliance, it again falls to Rules committee.  It has been recommended that we conduct an official inquiry, but I don't know what to do about it.  There are very few senior members of our organization, and none have been around for anything like this.  I don't know how to proceed.  I would appreciate any suggestions or help you have.

[jstackpo]

Sounds like you are channeling Washington, DC.

 

But, unfortunately, RONR, which mainly deals with procedure  --  how to behave in meetings  --  leaves the political organization and special rules of associations (such as your Rules committee) up to those associations.

 

One thing to check in your bylaws:  what body has the authority to actually amend your bylaws?  Can a proposed amendment  (to change the rules for the Rules Committee, for example) go to that body without spending time in the Rules Committee?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

One of our standing committees is in violation of our SGA's bylaws.  

Essentially, the bylaw states that one of our standing committees needs to establish certain terms at their first meeting of the semester.  

 

Well, after much debate, when it was clear nothing would pass the committee, they decided to suspend debate indefinitely and asked Rules committee to reconsider the bylaw that has them set standards. Rules debated it and passed a resolution to abolish the section, to get them out of that quandary and to provide more autonomy.  

Well, that resolution failed on the student senate floor tonight.  

I assume "SGA" is an abbreviation of Student Government Association. Right?

 

"... one of our standing committees needs to

establish certain terms

at their first meeting of the semester ..."

 

I don't know what "certain terms" need to be "established."

 

But if the symptom is,

 

"... it was clear nothing would pass the committee,

they decided to suspend debate indefinitely

and asked Rules committee to reconsider the bylaw

that has them set standards ..."

 

. . . then one "out" available might be for the Rules Committee to create a default set of pre-established terms (whatever you mean by "terms").

 

Example.

If the "terms" involved things like "who" and "when" and "where", then this new pre-set defaults would:

(a.) have the committee chair be the default "who".

(b.) have 30 days be the default "when".

(c.) have an internet work space be the default "where".

 

That way, if the committee cannot agree on a customized solution, at least there is a crude interim solution, buying time for the SGA system to come up with a better set of "terms".

 

***

 

There is a principle in management.

The principle says, a system should be able to allow for correction.

If you cannot get from Point A to Point B in the ideal straight line  or in the ideal shortest time frame, but you still need to get to Point B anyway, then get as far as you can in zig-zag course, or an arc course. And then correct what needs correcting.

But waiting for the whole-package solution to be in place before starting, that implies that you'll never start, because no one gets perfect information right off the bat.

 

***

[Transpower]

A standing committee is delegated certain responsibilities.  If it fails in that regard, the appointing body (either the board or the assembly) can appoint new members to the committee.  If the committee still fails in its duties, members of the assembly can move the motions which should have been recommended by the committee in the first place.  

[Josh Martin]

Hello all! I'm new to this forum with a question about how to conduct a rules review because frankly, I'm lost.

I chair the Rules Committee for my uni's SGA and usually know enough to fulfill my duties, but I'm struggling. One of our standing committees is in violation of our SGA's bylaws. Essentially, the bylaw states that one of our standing committees needs to establish certain terms at their first meeting of the semester. Well, after much debate, when it was clear nothing would pass the committee, they decided to suspend debate indefinitely and asked Rules committee to reconsider the bylaw that has them set standards. Rules debated it and passed a resolution to abolish the section, to get them out of that quandary and to provide more autonomy. Well, that resolution failed on the student senate floor tonight.

Because the committee is in violation of the bylaws right now, and because our bylaws also state that Rules committee should review all actions for compliance, it again falls to Rules committee. It has been recommended that we conduct an official inquiry, but I don't know what to do about it. There are very few senior members of our organization, and none have been around for anything like this. I don't know how to proceed. I would appreciate any suggestions or help you have.

RONR does not define the term "official inquiry." If this is something in your organization's rules, you'll need to check those rules. If not, then if you could explain exactly what you're trying to do, perhaps we can come up with something. (Perhaps the rules committee should also ask the people who are suggesting this what they mean by it.)

This all seems overly complicated to me. I concur with Transpower that if a committee refuses to perform its duties, the solution is to replace some or all members of the committee - which, presumably, is not the responsibility of the rules committee.