Continuing breach in subcommittee

[Guest Setemu]

A parent committee appointed non-members of the committee to its subcommittee. These appointments were never authorized by the assembly (c.f. p. 497, ll. 16-19). If the appointments are ratified by the assembly, does that also, by extension, also ratify all actions done by the subcommittee while the breach was occurring? Or, do the actions taken by the subcommittee also need to be ratified? If no one raises a point of order on the issue of continuing breach in this case, should the parliamentarian point out the error in proceedings?

[Setemu]

Here are the textual reference points I am working with: 

- "The motion to ratify...is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot be valid until approved by the assembly" (p. 124, ll. 24-27), and it can be applied in instances where "action [is] taken by...subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority..." (p. 124, ll. 34-35).

- "Subcommittees must consist of members of the committee, except when otherwise authorized by the society in cases where the committee is appointed to take action that requires the assistance of others” (p. 497, ll. 16-19).

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Guest Setemu said:

A parent committee appointed non-members of the committee to its subcommittee. These appointments were never authorized by the assembly (c.f. p. 497, ll. 16-19). If the appointments are ratified by the assembly, does that also, by extension, also ratify all actions done by the subcommittee while the breach was occurring? Or, do the actions taken by the subcommittee also need to be ratified? If no one raises a point of order on the issue of continuing breach in this case, should the parliamentarian point out the error in proceedings?

Is this subcommittee actually authorized to take actions? Generally, a subcommittee only has the power to make recommendations.

[Setemu]

No. I had thought it was, but I was confusing the recommendation for action with an action. The parent committee is a standing committee charged with drafting policy recommendations on a specific array of subjects, and its subcommittee was charged with drafting a recommendation on one specific policy. That subcommittee policy draft was recommended to the parent committee, the parent committee recommended it to the assembly, and the assembly adopted it---all with non-members of the parent committee on the subcommittee.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Whatever the status of the subcommittee's vote to recommend the draft, I would think it becomes moot when the parent committee (properly, I presume) votes to recommend it to the assembly.

[Setemu]

27 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Whatever the status of the subcommittee's vote to recommend the draft, I would think it becomes moot when the parent committee (properly, I presume) votes to recommend it to the assembly.

I wondered if that would be the case, but then why is there a rule prohibiting non-members of the parent committee from being on its subcommittee? Is there any significant parliamentary effect that follows from the appointment of non-members to the committee, especially considering they typically only give recommendations, or is the rule there to "merely" to ensure consistency with all the other rules regarding committee membership vis-a-vis the parent body (committees must be comprised of members of the assembly, so subcommittees must be comprised of members of the parent committee)?

Edited to add: I need to amend my answer to Mr. Martin above in light of new information. This subcommittee is a standing subcommittee, and from what I have been able to gather, it has been acting autonomously (carrying out activities not authorized by the assembly and not reporting to its parent committee). 

Edited April 24, 2018 at 12:21 AM by Setemu

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Whatever the status of the subcommittee's vote to recommend the draft, I would think it becomes moot when the parent committee (properly, I presume) votes to recommend it to the assembly.

I concur.

1 hour ago, Setemu said:

I wondered if that would be the case, but then why is there a rule prohibiting non-members of the parent committee from being on its subcommittee? Is there any significant parliamentary effect that follows from the appointment of non-members to the committee, especially considering they typically only give recommendations, or is the rule there to "merely" to ensure consistency with all the other rules regarding committee membership vis-a-vis the parent body (committees must be comprised of members of the assembly, so subcommittees must be comprised of members of the parent committee)?

If a subcommittee contains members who are not members of the parent committee, and the parent assembly has not authorized this, those appointments are null and void. When the committee reports to the parent assembly, however, the assembly is considering the report of the committee, not the report of the subcommittee. As a result, the composition of the subcommittee is no longer relevant to the validity of the recommendation.

This does not change the fact that the appointments are invalid unless and until authorized by the assembly. The assembly may ratify the appointments, or order the committee to remove these persons from the subcommittee, or discipline the members of the committee and/or the subcommittee, or any combination of these actions.

As I understand it, this rule is simply a recognition of the fact that as the committee is an instrumentality of the parent assembly, the committee has no authority to recruit persons outside of the committee to complete its work unless so authorized.

1 hour ago, Setemu said:

Edited to add: I need to amend my answer to Mr. Martin above in light of new information. This subcommittee is a standing subcommittee, and from what I have been able to gather, it has been acting autonomously (carrying out activities not authorized by the assembly and not reporting to its parent committee).

These actions are null and void on the basis of the fact that the subcommittee is exceeding its authority, and they would be null and void regardless of the composition of the committee.

Edited April 24, 2018 at 01:11 AM by Josh Martin

[Setemu]

11 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

These actions are null and void on the basis of the fact that the subcommittee is exceeding its authority, and they would be null and void regardless of the composition of the committee.

1) I understand that, as such, the assembly may countermand the actions, if it so chooses. Is it only the assembly that can take action or can the parent committee also take action regarding actions of its subcommittee exceeding its authority?

2) Am I correct that a committee cannot authorize its subcommittee to make recommendations or to carry out actions it itself is not authorized by the assembly to make or cary out, unless the assembly authorizes those additional charges?

3) The parliamentarian is responsible for "call[ing] the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm" (p. 466., ll. 15-17). I've always thought of this responsibility being contained within the proceedings of assembly meetings itself. Do any of the issues under discussion here fall under this duty of the parliamentarian?

Thank you for answering these additional questions. I'd like to make sure I have provisional answers prepared on these, and have some sense of what kinds of follow up questions I might ask, before I start formally answering questions from assembly members.

[Josh Martin]

15 minutes ago, Setemu said:

1) I understand that, as such, the assembly may countermand the actions, if it so chooses. Is it only the assembly that can take action or can the parent committee also take action regarding actions of its subcommittee exceeding its authority?

Countermanding an action would apply if the subcommittee did have the authority (but not exclusive authority) to take the actions, but the parent committee or assembly simply disagrees with these particular actions. As I understand the facts, the subcommittee is taking actions it is not authorized to take. In that event, the proper course of action is to declare these actions null and void, to order the subcommittee not to take any further actions in excess of its authority, and (if desired) to take disciplinary action against the members of the subcommittee.

I think the parent committee may take action as well, although the maximum penalty which the committee could impose for discipline would be to remove persons from the subcommittee.

15 minutes ago, Setemu said:

2) Am I correct that a committee cannot authorize its subcommittee to make recommendations or to carry out actions it itself is not authorized by the assembly to make or cary out, unless the assembly authorizes those additional charges?

Yes, it is certainly correct that a committee cannot grant a subcommittee authority that the committee itself does not have.

15 minutes ago, Setemu said:

3) The parliamentarian is responsible for "call[ing] the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm" (p. 466., ll. 15-17). I've always thought of this responsibility being contained within the proceedings of assembly meetings itself. Do any of the issues under discussion here fall under this duty of the parliamentarian?

I think it is the responsibility of the parliamentarian to inform the chair of all errors in procedure that may affect members’ rights or may otherwise do harm, whether or not the error occurs during a meeting of the assembly.

Edited April 24, 2018 at 02:08 PM by Josh Martin

[Setemu]

2 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

the proper course of action is to declare these actions null and void, to order the subcommittee not to take any further actions in excess of its authority, and (if desired) to take disciplinary action against the members of the subcommittee.

Does the chair make this declaration and order, and is it considered a ruling; or, does the assembly vote on it? If it is the assembly, is it a majority vote? Majority in negative vote?

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Setemu said:

Does the chair make this declaration and order, and is it considered a ruling; or, does the assembly vote on it? If it is the assembly, is it a majority vote? Majority in negative vote?

In my opinion, the chair may make the ruling that the actions are null and void himself, either on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order. A member may appeal from the chair’s ruling which, if seconded, would place the question in the hands of the assembly. The question is stated as “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?” A majority vote in the negative is required to overturn the chair’s ruling.

Adopting a motion ordering the subcommittee not to take any further actions in excess of its authority is a decision for the assembly to make, and such a motion would require a majority vote for adoption.