Committees

[James]

When a committee (by-law) is asked to investigate the interpretation of a law or wording of a law, once the committee has made the determination and has made the report to the body, can a motion be made to not accept the motion

[Edgar Guest]

The motion should be worded positively (i.e. to accept the committee's interpretation), not negatively (i.e. to reject the committee's interpretation) but, of course, the motion could be defeated.

 

Edited to add: Even if the committee's interpretation is rejected it might be wise to amend the bylaws so that an "interpretation" won't be needed. Otherwise you might find yourselves confronting a different "interpretation" in the future. And even if it's accepted it could conceivably be rescinded at a later date. Best to make the bylaws as unambiguous as possible.

[Dan Honemann]

The motion should be worded positively (i.e. to accept the committee's interpretation), not negatively (i.e. to reject the committee's interpretation) but, of course, the motion could be defeated.

 

Edited to add: Even if the committee's interpretation is rejected it might be wise to amend the bylaws so that an "interpretation" won't be needed. Otherwise you might find yourselves confronting a different "interpretation" in the future. And even if it's accepted it could conceivably be rescinded at a later date. Best to make the bylaws as unambiguous as possible.

 

This business about having a committee submit a recommendation concerning how the bylaws are to be interpreted doesn't cause any concern? 

[Edgar Guest]

This business about having a committee submit a recommendation concerning how the bylaws are to be interpreted doesn't cause any concern? 

 

Oh, it causes concern alright.

 

I recall a not-so-recent discussion which, if I recall correctly, suggested that the bylaws can only be officially "interpreted" by a ruling of the chair following a point of order following an alleged infraction. Subject, of course, to appeal. And, presumably, subject to a different ruling by a different chair at a later date.

 

But apparently this organization decided to be pro-active (?) and tasked a committee with resolving an apparent ambiguity.

 

I might have let it go with my suggestion that any motion be worded positively but, yes, I still had concerns. Which is why I edited my post to suggest that the bylaws be amended. And, during debate on the proposed amendment, the various "interpretations" could be considered.

[Dan Honemann]

But apparently this organization decided to be pro-active (?) and tasked a committee with resolving an apparent ambiguity.

 

 

I'm not entirely sure that this is what, in fact, occurred, but if so It seems to me that this is simply an attempt to amend the bylaws on the cheap by the adoption of a motion claiming that they say something that they do not unambiguously say.

 

Interpretation of ambiguous bylaws should occur only when absolutely necessary incident to the resolution of a point of order, and even in these cases the assembly should then take such steps as are necessary to amend the bylaws in order to remove the ambiguity.

[Edgar Guest]

I'm not entirely sure that this is what, in fact, occurred, but if so It seems to me that this is simply an attempt to amend the bylaws on the cheap by the adoption of a motion claiming that they say something that they do not unambiguously say.

 

Perhaps. I guess I assumed this organization was trying to do the right thing.

 

But I'm relieved that we're on the same page when it comes to saying that the solution is to amend the bylaws. 

 

Since James is now a member of this august (yet humble) forum, I trust he'll return to follow up.

[Gary Novosielski]

When a committee (by-law) is asked to investigate the interpretation of a law or wording of a law, once the committee has made the determination and has made the report to the body, can a motion be made to not accept the motion

 

As others have pointed out, that's not how interpretations of the bylaws occur.  

 

If the committee thinks they know what the bylaws language is supposed to mean, they should propose an amendment to the bylaws to make it say what it is supposed to mean, presuming it does not already.  And if it does not already, how do they know?    

 

In any case, the committee can't change the bylaws, and can't force anyone to interpret the bylaws the way they say.  The only way the bylaws get changed is in accordance with the provisions in the bylaws that relate to their own amendment.  Until that process occurs, the bylaws are assumed to mean what they say, and must continue to be enforced on that basis, until duly amended.