Special Cte Appointed to Assigned function of Subcte.

[Setemu]

RONR states "A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee." (492, ll. 6-9).

Situation: The by-laws state that The Convention Committee will annually appoint a subcommittee to review the bylaws of the convention (the parent committee is also responsible for securing a venue and the like). The Convention Committee, in addition to the bylaws subcommittee, appoints an ad hoc subcommittee to review the committee structure of the convention specifically, which are enumerated in the by-laws.

Question: Considering there is already a subcommittee that reviews the by-laws generally, does the cited passage in RONR above preclude the appointment of the special committee from the same parent committee?

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm a little confused.  Does this remain within the purview of the Convention Committee, just a different subcommittee?

[Richard Brown]

I'm confused, too.  It appears to me this is perhaps a matter of conflicting provisions within the organization's bylaws.  My take on this is that the bylaws set up a permanent bylaws committee but also provide for the convention committee to create a subcommittee to review the bylaws.  If so, this is a matter of interpreting the organization's bylaws, something the organization itself must do. 

Setemu, can you provide us with a little more information?  It seems I'm not the only one confused.

Edited to  add:  Upon reading the other responses that have been posted to date and re-reading the original post, I realize I likely misunderstood what the situation is.  And i still don't understand it. 

Edited September 7, 2018 at 10:21 PM by Richard Brown

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Setemu said:

Question: Considering there is already a subcommittee that reviews the by-laws generally, does the cited passage in RONR above preclude the appointment of the special committee from the same parent committee?

Yes, I believe that the rule in question also applies to standing subcommittees. If your bylaws provide, however, that such a special committee is to be appointed, that would take precedence over the rule in RONR on this subject. It is not clear from your post whether the special subcommittee you referred to is called for in the bylaws or if it is simply something the convention committee has decided to do.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I'm confused, too.  It appears to me this is perhaps a matter of conflicting provisions within the organization's bylaws.  My take on this is that the bylaws set up a permanent bylaws committee but also provide for the convention committee to create a subcommittee to review the bylaws.  If so, this is a matter of interpreting the organization's bylaws, something the organization itself must do. 

Setemu, can you provide us with a little more information?  It seems I'm not the only one confused.

My understanding is that one of the subcommittees reviews only certain aspects of the bylaws, so if both of these provisions are indeed in the bylaws, the specific vs. general rule would seem to resolve the conflict.

Edited September 7, 2018 at 08:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

My take is that the permanent bylaws committee is concerned with the organization's bylaws, while the Convention Committee is concerned with the convention's rules. I see no conflict, however, I would check to see historically how the organization dealt with this. There may be some ancient custom being followed.

[Setemu]

4 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, I believe that the rule in question also applies to standing subcommittees. If your bylaws provide, however, that such a special committee is to be appointed, that would take precedence over the rule in RONR on this subject. It is not clear from your post whether the special subcommittee you referred to is called for in the bylaws or if it is simply something the convention committee has decided to do.

My understanding is that one of the subcommittees reviews only certain aspects of the bylaws, so if both of these provisions are indeed in the bylaws, the specific vs. general rule would seem to resolve the conflict.

The special (ad hoc) subcommittee of the Convention Committee is being appointed by the Convention Committee itself to review certain aspects of the bylaws, and this subcommittee is not established in the bylaws. The standing subcommittee of the Convention Committee is charged with annually reviewing all of the bylaws, and this subcommittee is established in the bylaws. By my lights, the subcommittee not established in the bylaws cannot be established to take up the task of reviewing and making recommendations on a selection of the bylaws if there is already an established subcommittee (of the same parent committee) charged with reviewing and making recommendations on all of the bylaws annually.

I think the intent here is to take some of the burden off of the bylaws committee, because they Convention Committee wants extensive work done reviewing the committee structure, and they want a specialized group to do that.

Part of my confusion is that we are dealing with subcommittees within the same standing committee, and it seems to me that there is a lot of leeway in terms of how committees decide to use subcommittees (aside from, of course, what is enumerated int he bylaws). Does it make any sense for the by-laws subcommittee to create an ad hoc subcommittee of itself instead of the parent committee establishing a second subcommittee with redundant functions? Or does RONR not allow for subcommittees of subcommittees?

I hope that all makes the situation clearer.

[Guest Zev]

All of the recommendations are going to emanate from the same Convention Committee. Denying them the discretion on how to apportion their workload among their own sub-committees does not seem to be very helpful.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Setemu said:

The special (ad hoc) subcommittee of the Convention Committee is being appointed by the Convention Committee itself to review certain aspects of the bylaws, and this subcommittee is not established in the bylaws. The standing subcommittee of the Convention Committee is charged with annually reviewing all of the bylaws, and this subcommittee is established in the bylaws. By my lights, the subcommittee not established in the bylaws cannot be established to take up the task of reviewing and making recommendations on a selection of the bylaws if there is already an established subcommittee (of the same parent committee) charged with reviewing and making recommendations on all of the bylaws annually.

I think the intent here is to take some of the burden off of the bylaws committee, because they Convention Committee wants extensive work done reviewing the committee structure, and they want a specialized group to do that.

Part of my confusion is that we are dealing with subcommittees within the same standing committee, and it seems to me that there is a lot of leeway in terms of how committees decide to use subcommittees (aside from, of course, what is enumerated int he bylaws). Does it make any sense for the by-laws subcommittee to create an ad hoc subcommittee of itself instead of the parent committee establishing a second subcommittee with redundant functions? Or does RONR not allow for subcommittees of subcommittees?

I hope that all makes the situation clearer.

Thank you for the clarification. Based on these additional facts, I believe it is not in order to create the subcommittee in question. In my view, the rule in question also applies to standing subcommittees, especially when those subcommittees are established in the bylaws.

It would, in my opinion, be in order to create a sub-subcommittee to investigate these matters. So far as I can tell, no rule in RONR prohibits the creation of such a committee. I believe they are not explicitly discussed simply because this is not a common arrangement.

You also referred to the “bylaws of the convention,” which I believe is causing some confusion. In the ordinary case, the bylaws are the highest document of the organization and refer not only to the convention but to all aspects of the organization. Such a document is of a permanent nature, and is amended only as needed. The rules for a particular convention are referred to as “convention standing rules,” and these rules are adopted anew for each convention. Since you are instead using the term “bylaws” interchangeably, I have some clarifying questions.

• When you say that the bylaws establish the bylaws subcommittee, do you mean the bylaws of the organization or the rules of the convention?
• Is the role of the bylaws subcommittee to review the bylaws of the organization or the rules of the convention? Or both?
• Is the role of the special subcommittee to review the bylaws of the organization or the rules of the convention? Or both?

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

All of the recommendations are going to emanate from the same Convention Committee. Denying them the discretion on how to apportion their workload among their own sub-committees does not seem to be very helpful.

Perhaps not, but the organization made that call when it established certain standing subcommittees in the bylaws. It may be worth considering amending the bylaws so that the subcommittees of the Convention Committee are not enumerated, so that it has the flexibility to divide its work as the specific situation requires. In the interim, however, it is not in order to appoint a special subcommittee to review a particular aspect of the bylaws when there is already a standing subcommittee to review the bylaws as a whole. A “sub-subcommittee” of the bylaws committee could, however, be created.

Another thing to think about is whether the bylaws committee should be a subcommittee of the Convention Committee rather than a standing committee in its own right, which would be the usual arrangement. (Although it is not entirely clear whether these committees are actually reviewing the convention standing rules, due to the term “bylaws of the convention.”)

Edited September 8, 2018 at 12:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Setemu]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Thank you for the clarification. Based on these additional facts, I believe it is not in order to create the subcommittee in question. In my view, the rule in question also applies to standing subcommittees, especially when those subcommittees are established in the bylaws...

...the organization made that call when it established certain standing subcommittees in the bylaws. It may be worth considering amending the bylaws so that the subcommittees of the Convention Committee are not enumerated, so that it has the flexibility to divide its work as the specific situation requires. In the interim, however, it is not in order to appoint a special subcommittee to review a particular aspect of the bylaws when there is already a standing subcommittee to review the bylaws as a whole. A “sub-subcommittee” of the bylaws committee could, however, be created.

Another thing to think about is whether the bylaws committee should be a subcommittee of the Convention Committee rather than a standing committee in its own right, which would be the usual arrangement. (Although it is not entirely clear whether these committees are actually reviewing the convention standing rules, due to the term “bylaws of the convention.”)

This really is the heart of the matter. My intuition accorded with your understanding, but I couldn't quite get clear on all the reasoning without everyone's questions and analysis here. Thank you all. I think I have a clear understanding of how to proceed.

I think the relationships among the bodies here might best be described this way: there is an organization with standing committees enumerated in its by-laws. One of those standing committees is charged in the bylaws with establishing a subcommittee to annually review the by-laws of the organization. That same standing committee wants to also establish an an hoc subcommittee, not established in the bylaws, to review the committee structure of the organization, specifically. It seems to me by what has been said here is that the conclusion is the same: considering the bylaws establish a specific subcommittee for reviewing and making recommendations regarding the bylaws (the bylaws establishing the committee structure of the assembly among other things), the RONR rule cited in the original post applies (at least according to Mr. Martin's reasoning), and the ad hoc committee to specifically review the committee structure is prohibited, because that body would be undertaking a task already assigned to another body in the bylaws (regardless, in Mr. Martin's reasoning, if the bodies in question are committees, subcommittees, or a combination thereof). The other way to look at it, is along the lines of what Guest Zev suggested: these two subcommittees are instruments of the same parent committee, and that single parent committee may assign tasks to subcommittees as it sees fit. While I think Guest Zev's suggestion would make for the easiest resolution in my particular case, and I find it has some purchase, I tend to agree with Mr. Martin that it is nonetheless prohibited considering the by-laws already establish a specific subcommittee with the general task of reviewing the by-laws, which include the committee structure. The best long term solution is probably what Mr. Martin has suggested: to amend the bylaws to provide more flexibility to the standing committee in question.

[Guest Zev]

What this thing is sounding like is an internal struggle of some kind with members of the bylaws sub-committee in disagreement with the parent Convention Committee. The parent Convention Committee can get around all this ...

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

A “sub-subcommittee” of the bylaws committee could, however, be created.

... by doing exactly this; ordering the sub-committee to create a sub-subcommittee and appointing whoever the parent Convention Committee intended to appoint to the original ad hoc sub-committee. And even if this did not take place, the Convention Committee could either order the sub-committee to produce a report covering the committee structure issue, or it could submit a report of its own.

Gentlemen, please. This is not a board with independent powers, it is only a committee. The Convention Committee is still the committee that will present the report to the Convention. The maximum that will ever take place is a recommendation that the general convention assembly will either accept or reject. What in the world is the problem?

[Josh Martin]

19 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

What this thing is sounding like is an internal struggle of some kind with members of the bylaws sub-committee in disagreement with the parent Convention Committee. The parent Convention Committee can get around all this ...

... by doing exactly this; ordering the sub-committee to create a sub-subcommittee and appointing whoever the parent Convention Committee intended to appoint to the original ad hoc sub-committee. And even if this did not take place, the Convention Committee could either order the sub-committee to produce a report covering the committee structure issue, or it could submit a report of its own.

Gentlemen, please. This is not a board with independent powers, it is only a committee. The Convention Committee is still the committee that will present the report to the Convention. The maximum that will ever take place is a recommendation that the general convention assembly will either accept or reject. What in the world is the problem?

Zev, is it your opinion that the rule on pg. 492 does not apply to subcommittees, or is your argument simply “Who cares?”

[Guest Zev]

Quote

"A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee."

(RONR, 11th edition, page 492, lines 6-9.)

The bylaws of this organization have created the sub-committee and have assigned it a specific task. The Convention Committee cannot perform the act of taking away the assigned function of the sub-committee and giving it to someone else.

I have no problem with this rule.

I am guessing that the OP's unstated observation is that the sub-committee is trying to make their report into the Convention Committee's report and are finding that they cannot do that because they are being outvoted. Also, the Convention Committee may be trying to deflect the sub-committee's opinions by creating the ad hoc sub-committee. But it is all a guess.

The sub-committee simply cannot prevail in this matter. The Convention Committee can either reject the sub-committee's report altogether and substitute their own, or they can appoint additional members to the sub-committee, including the entire committee itself, and issue the desired report (unless the bylaws have something else to say about the sub-committee's composition). If the sub-committee has strong feelings about any particular aspect of their report, the best they can do is work toward their desired goal and if the committee submits a report they do not agree with, in part or in whole, they can request permission from the assembly to present a minority report and still make their views known to the membership. So, there is something for everyone. This is the reason why I do not believe any of this to be an earth-shattering problem.

Who cares? I cannot tell what the reference is. I myself care or else I would not be here. If the reference is to whether the organization should care what the rule is, the answer is yes, until they decide otherwise and create a special rule of order on this subject.

My regards to Mr. Martin.

[Josh Martin]

15 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

(RONR, 11th edition, page 492, lines 6-9.)

The bylaws of this organization have created the sub-committee and have assigned it a specific task. The Convention Committee cannot perform the act of taking away the assigned function of the sub-committee and giving it to someone else.

I have no problem with this rule.

I am guessing that the OP's unstated observation is that the sub-committee is trying to make their report into the Convention Committee's report and are finding that they cannot do that because they are being outvoted. Also, the Convention Committee may be trying to deflect the sub-committee's opinions by creating the ad hoc sub-committee. But it is all a guess.

The sub-committee simply cannot prevail in this matter. The Convention Committee can either reject the sub-committee's report altogether and substitute their own, or they can appoint additional members to the sub-committee, including the entire committee itself, and issue the desired report (unless the bylaws have something else to say about the sub-committee's composition). If the sub-committee has strong feelings about any particular aspect of their report, the best they can do is work toward their desired goal and if the committee submits a report they do not agree with, in part or in whole, they can request permission from the assembly to present a minority report and still make their views known to the membership. So, there is something for everyone. This is the reason why I do not believe any of this to be an earth-shattering problem.

Who cares? I cannot tell what the reference is. I myself care or else I would not be here. If the reference is to whether the organization should care what the rule is, the answer is yes, until they decide otherwise and create a special rule of order on this subject.

My regards to Mr. Martin.

Thank you for your clarification. I believe I had previously misunderstood your position.

I see nothing in the OP’s statements to suggest that there is some sort of power struggle occurring. My understanding was that the desire for a separate committee was simply that the bylaws subcommittee was overworked. The OP stated “I think the intent here is to take some of the burden off of the bylaws committee, because they Convention Committee wants extensive work done reviewing the committee structure, and they want a specialized group to do that.” Unless and until the bylaws can be amended to grant the convention committee more flexibility in performing its duties, the strategy of creating a “sub-subcommittee” seems to assist in this goal.

Nonetheless, I concur with your conclusions on the rules and I also agree that this is not an earth-shattering problem.

Edited September 10, 2018 at 01:18 PM by Josh Martin