Countermanding a Committee Decision?

[Setemu]

If a committee is charged (but not given "full power") to take particular actions on behalf of the assembly, and the committee acts on that charge within the proper scope of that charge, but the assembly disagrees with a particular action already taken in accordance with that charge, can the assembly countermand the action? If not, are there any other options available aside from further instructions or amending the charges for the future?

[Richard Brown]

29 minutes ago, Setemu said:

If a committee is charged (but not given "full power") to take particular actions on behalf of the assembly, and the committee acts on that charge within the proper scope of that charge, but the assembly disagrees with a particular action already taken in accordance with that charge, can the assembly countermand the action? If not, are there any other options available aside from further instructions or amending the charges for the future?

Your use of the phrase "If a committee is charged (but not given "full power") to take particular action. . . ." is confusing.  The committee either does or does not have "power" to act on the items within the scope of its charge.   See, for example, the following language on page 490:  "When a committee is appointed "with power," this means with power to take all the steps necessary to carry out its instructions."  See also page 172.

Since committees are subordinate to the body which created the committee, in this case, apparently, the general membership, it is my opinion that the parent body (the membership) may countermand a decision of a committee just as it could a decision of its executive board.  If it is a matter which the committee was specifically authorized to take action on, I believe the same rules for reversing a decision of the board would apply:  it would have to be treated as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted.  See Official Interpretation 2006-13.   http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13

The assembly may, of course, amend its "charge", instructions and authority granted to the committee for the future.  See, for example, this language on page177:  "SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCTIONS. After a question has been referred to a committee and at any time before the committee submits its report, even at another session, the assembly by a majority vote can give the committee additional instructions in reference to the referred question."

 

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, Setemu said:

disagrees with a particular action already taken in accordance with that charge...

If however, that action cannot be undone (the gazebo is painted, the political endorsement has been publicized, &c), "countermanding" isn't an option. Page 308.  And it is presumably out of order to make such a motion.

A motion to (re)paint with a different color or formally withdraw or repudiate the endorsement is just a new main motion, not a rescission of something previously adopted.

[Richard Brown]

18 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

If however, that action cannot be undone (the gazebo is painted, the political endorsement has been publicized, &c), "countermanding" isn't an option. Page 308.  And it is presumably out of order to make such a motion.

A motion to (re)paint with a different color or formally withdraw or repudiate the endorsement is just a new main motion, not a rescission of something previously adopted.

I think it could be argued that a motion to repudiate or withdraw the endorsement of John Smith for  mayor might well be  in the nature of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted. That's an interesting question that is probably worth pursuing, but it's not the purpose of me making this post.

Let's go back to the example in the original post about the assembly being displeased with a decision of a committee which has been created with power to do something, such as the power to paint  the clubhouse including the power to select the color and to set the date for the work weekend. If the committee chairman reports at a membership meeting that the committee has decided to paint the clubhouse orange with green trim and will be having a work party this coming weekend to do so, and the membership does not like those paint colors, the membership could countermand the decision of the committee and direct that the clubhouse be painted white with red trim. It is my opinion that such an action by the membership would have to be in the nature of a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted, since the committee had been granted the power to decide the paint color.

[jstackpo]

We can save the debate about "withdrawing" an endorsement vs rescinding it for another time.

I agree about changing the paint color before it is applied, but suppose the committee had already bought the orange and green paint (custom mixed colors so cannot be returned for credit) then amending the colors would involve an additional expense (white/red paint) -- that goes beyond "amending" it seems to me.  Including the additional cost in the amendment (orange/green to white/red) would go beyond the scope of the original motion. So I suppose a 2/3 vote could do it.

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

"SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCTIONS. After a question has been referred to a committee and at any time before the committee submits its report, even at another session, the assembly by a majority vote can give the committee additional instructions in reference to the referred question."

Had the original motion directed the committee to select a specific set of colors and the assembly now wishes to change that, then I can see the use of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. But if the committee itself selected the colors and the assembly wishes to countermand that selection then a majority vote for additional instructions satisfies me. 

[Setemu]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Your use of the phrase "If a committee is charged (but not given "full power") to take particular action. . . ." is confusing.  The committee either does or does not have "power" to act on the items within the scope of its charge.   See, for example, the following language on page 490:  "When a committee is appointed "with power," this means with power to take all the steps necessary to carry out its instructions."  See also page 172.

 

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

See Official Interpretation 2006-13.   http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13

This OI is quite germane and helpful. It not only gives guidance on my original question in this post but also helps me clear up some confusion regarding what it means for the assembly's oversight of a committee when a committee is appointed "with power". Thank you.

 

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

We can save the debate about "withdrawing" an endorsement vs rescinding it for another time.

I agree about changing the paint color before it is applied, but suppose the committee had already bought the orange and green paint (custom mixed colors so cannot be returned for credit) then amending the colors would involve an additional expense (white/red paint) -- that goes beyond "amending" it seems to me.  Including the additional cost in the amendment (orange/green to white/red) would go beyond the scope of the original motion. So I suppose a 2/3 vote could do it.

I guess this is a reason why a committee might want hold a hearing, or make a report on color choice before purchasing paint, if the committee thinks there might be any disagreement with the assembly over the colors 😉 .  It does seem like 2/3-vote would be most appropriate, and I guess it would be up to the assembly to decide whether they want to waste the money on tossing out the mixed paint colors when they consider the ASPA/Rescind motion.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

Had the original motion directed the committee to select a specific set of colors and the assembly now wishes to change that, then I can see the use of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. But if the committee itself selected the colors and the assembly wishes to countermand that selection then a majority vote for additional instructions satisfies me.   (Emphasis added by RB)

Well, a majority vote with additional instructions might satisfy you, but it won't satisfy anyone who wants to follow the rules in RONR.  You might re-read the passage from RONR which I (and then you) quoted.  I think you are overlooking the key phrase "at any time before the committee submits its report".

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The assembly may, of course, amend its "charge", instructions and authority granted to the committee for the future.  See, for example, this language on page177:  "SUBSEQUENT INSTRUCTIONS. After a question has been referred to a committee and at any time before the committee submits its report, even at another session, the assembly by a majority vote can give the committee additional instructions in reference to the referred question."(Emphasis added)

 

The key phrase is, "at any time before the committee submits its report".  In the example I used of the committee deciding to paint the building orange with green trim, the committee had already decided on that action and was reporting its decision to the membership in its committee report.  Therefore, since the report had been submitted,  the assembly could not simply issue new instructions regarding the undesirable paint color, but would have to actually countermand the decision of the committee.  That would have to be by the use of the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted, just as would be the case if it was the executive board, rather than the committee, that had made the decision to paint the clubhouse orange.

It is important to keep in mind that that the committee had been specifically granted the power to "handle" the painting of the clubhouse, including the selection of the paint color.  Here is the key language from that hypothetical:

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Let's go back to the example in the original post about the assembly being displeased with a decision of a committee which has been created with power to do something, such as the power to paint  the clubhouse including the power to select the color and to set the date for the work weekend.

I think that for the membership to order a change in the paint color after the committee has submitted its report (and before the paint is bought or applied) would clearly require a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted just as it would if it was countermanding a decision of the executive board.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, after the committee reports, it is too late to further instruct the committee, but it is not too late to Recommit, which again requires only a majority vote.

In this case however, it was my understanding that the committee had not yet reported, but rather began to take actions with which some members of the assembly disagreed.  In that case, it seems to me a motion to further instruct the committee would be appropriate, to the extent that the actions in question had not been fully carried out.

The only time a vote to Amend Something Previously Adopted would be necessary is if the committee did report, and the assembly adopted the recommendations in the report.  If the committee had fully carried out its plans, making further instructions impossible, then a motion to ASPA would also be impossible, and the only option then would be a new main motion to attempt to mitigate the damage done.

Edited October 28, 2018 at 04:04 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Zev]

In this case, however, in order for Mr. Brown's analysis to hold any water I must accept the proposition that the use of the expression "...and at any time before the committee submits its report" (RONR 11th, p. 177 l 14) signifies by way of implication that once the committee actually submits its report the assembly cannot issue additional instructions without a two-thirds vote. Until the authors indicate that this was their intent I am going to sit over here on this side of the room with Mr. Novosielski. Nothing personal Mr. Brown. I'm just having difficulty believing it.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

In this case, however, in order for Mr. Brown's analysis to hold any water I must accept the proposition that the use of the expression "...and at any time before the committee submits its report" (RONR 11th, p. 177 l 14) signifies by way of implication that once the committee actually submits its report the assembly cannot issue additional instructions without a two-thirds vote. Until the authors indicate that this was their intent I am going to sit over here on this side of the room with Mr. Novosielski. Nothing personal Mr. Brown. I'm just having difficulty believing it.

The question of whether the committee has reported or not is not simply a matter of what vote is required to instruct the committee, but rather a matter of logic: Once the committee reports on a matter it was charged to consider, it is no longer considering that matter.  Further instructions regarding a matter that is no longer under consideration are a logical absurdity. 

In order to instruct the committee to take that matter again under consideration, the motion to Recommit must be used.

[Guest Zev]

Observe that the original motion to Commit, the motion to provide additional instructions, or the motion to Recommit, all required only a majority vote. What I disagreed with is that any of these actions required a higher voting threshold.

[Gary Novosielski]

Then this side of the room clearly represents the parliamentary high-ground.  🙂 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/27/2018 at 11:03 AM, Setemu said:

If a committee is charged (but not given "full power") to take particular actions on behalf of the assembly, and the committee acts on that charge within the proper scope of that charge, but the assembly disagrees with a particular action already taken in accordance with that charge, can the assembly countermand the action? If not, are there any other options available aside from further instructions or amending the charges for the future?

Yes, I think the assembly may countermand this action, even if the committee has been granted full power, and this would require only a majority vote. I do not think that appointing a committee with power places it on the same level as a board.

Edited October 29, 2018 at 02:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

In this particular case the full power appears to have been granted via a motion. Had the full power been granted via a bylaw provision, it is my understanding that the assembly could not countermand the committee's decision. You might want to confirm this.

[Josh Martin]

15 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

In this particular case the full power appears to have been granted via a motion. Had the full power been granted via a bylaw provision, it is my understanding that the assembly could not countermand the committee's decision. You might want to confirm this.

If the committee had been granted exclusive power by virtue of a provision in the bylaws, then certainly the committee’s decision could not be countermanded.

If the bylaws granted the committee this power, but it was not exclusive, then the situation may be comparable to a subordinate board - the action may be countermanded, but it would require a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

[Setemu]

15 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

In this particular case the full power appears to have been granted via a motion. Had the full power been granted via a bylaw provision, it is my understanding that the assembly could not countermand the committee's decision. You might want to confirm this.

I think that the OI Mr. Brown referenced (http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13) would indicate that even a board given full power and authority to do something in the by-laws (in that OI, the powers the board is given would seem to be standard ones written in by-laws), their actions can nonetheless be countermanded.

[Guest Zev]

Thank you, Setemu. I stand corrected. Hmm. Perhaps I should consult the OIs more frequently. 

[Setemu]

On 10/30/2018 at 9:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

If the committee had been granted exclusive power by virtue of a provision in the bylaws, then certainly the committee’s decision could not be countermanded.

I see that now after rereading the RONR section on executive boards. Thank you!

Edited November 2, 2018 at 12:34 PM by Setemu