Objection to Committee Recommendation, What to do?

[Guest Chip]

Situation: At February Meeting

1. Committee presents recommendation to organization.

2. One person objects and want to expand on recommendation.

3. After lengthy discussion, motion is made and passed to send the topic back to Committee. 

4. The committee believes that the committee  will stay the course. And, the recommendation will remain the same thing.

5. It’s anticipated that a motion will be made to revise the committee’s recommendation.

6. If a second is made and 2/3rds vote to support the revision the committee’s recommendation is dead.

Questions

1. Is there any rule that can block a motion to revise a committee’s recommendation? 

2. Can the chair make a motion at the March meeting for the body to accept the committee’s recommendation at the onset of her report?  The objections may come up during the discussion but the vote will be the vote.

 

[Nathan Zook]

I am assuming that your bylaws and rules of order are silent about the report of this committee.

The body has no requirement to act on a committee recommendation.  If someone (often the chairman of the committee) makes a motion to adopt the recommendation, then this is a regular motion in almost every regard.  The exception is that the second is implied by the majority of the committee supporting the report, so the chairman does not request a second.  So I am really confused by your assertion of point 6.

As for the questions, in answer to question 1) since the chairman of the committee usually makes the report and concludes it by moving its adoption, they have priority in being recognized in debate.  She can use this to immediate move the previous question, which is non-debateable, and requires a 2/3rds vote.  The technical term for this maneuver is "ram-rodding", and is a tried and true method to bring deep division to a body.  Do not recommend.

While the chairman of the committee is making her report, there is no motion before the assembly.  When she move the adoption of the report, there is still no motion before the assembly until the chairman of the assembly puts the question to the assembly.  At this point, the chairman of the committee needs to address the chairman of the assembly immediately to make it clear that she desires to speak in debate on the motion, which is often not done for committee reports.

It is not particularly unusual for a recalcitrant member of a committee to take their concerns to the full assembly.  Indeed, this is the purpose of debating the motion to adopt the report, and it is their right to do so.  The usual course of action when this is anticipated is for the majority of the committee to spread out in the time before the report of the committee, and attempt to persuade the members of the assembly as to the reasoning of the majority.  Then, shortly before the meeting, the majority can agree as to the order that they will seek the recognition of the chair, and on what particular aspects of the majority's reasoning each will expound on.

There is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade people outside of a meeting of the assembly.  There is a lot wrong with trampling the rights of members, and a quick previous question is almost always seen as doing just that.

 

[Guest NES]

“There is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade people outside of a meeting of the assembly.  There is a lot wrong with trampling the rights of members, and a quick previous question is almost always seen as doing just that.“

Can you expand on persuading people outside a meeting, and can you also expand on how members rights can be trampled upon, possibly with examples?

 I believe the board that I am a member of currently thinks that any communications outside of a meeting between board members is not legal which I know is not the case.  It is my belief that they have been told by the president not to communicate with other members... if they have been told (incorrectly) that this is illegal, is that seeing as intimidation of any kind, or is the president just misinformed, and in turn, mid-informing others?

Thanks for any help.

 

[Benjamin Geiger]

Persuading people outside a meeting is just that: talking to people, outside of the context of a meeting, to attempt to convince them to vote for (or against) a motion when it comes up. In most cases this is entirely legal and kosher. The exceptions are certain governmental agencies, particularly in states such as Florida with strict "sunshine laws". In some of those states, if two or more members of the same board are communicating about business then it's considered a meeting and must be documented.

And there are plenty of ways that members' rights can be trampled, particularly if the rules in RONR are not followed. Specifically, the Previous Question steps on the rights of the minority to debate the subject. (This right has to be balanced with the majority's right to proceed with other business without being unduly impeded. Hence, the Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote to pass, in order to prevent a bare majority from trampling on the rights of the minority.)

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest Chip said:

6. If a second is made and 2/3rds vote to support the revision the committee’s recommendation is dead.

Could you explain why exactly this is the case? For that matter, why is a 2/3 vote required to amend the motion?

9 hours ago, Guest Chip said:

1. Is there any rule that can block a motion to revise a committee’s recommendation? 

No.

9 hours ago, Guest Chip said:

2. Can the chair make a motion at the March meeting for the body to accept the committee’s recommendation at the onset of her report?  The objections may come up during the discussion but the vote will be the vote.

Yes, but motions may be amended, so this does not resolve your problem.

As Mr. Zook suggests, the committee chairman could then move the Previous Question (which requires a 2/3 vote) to proceed to an immediate vote on the main motion, but since you have suggested that there is 2/3 support for a motion to amend the recommendation, this seems unlikely to be adopted.

3 hours ago, Guest NES said:

I believe the board that I am a member of currently thinks that any communications outside of a meeting between board members is not legal which I know is not the case.  It is my belief that they have been told by the president not to communicate with other members... if they have been told (incorrectly) that this is illegal, is that seeing as intimidation of any kind, or is the president just misinformed, and in turn, mid-informing others?

I concur with my colleagues that there is no parliamentary rule against members communicating outside of a meeting, but there may well be limitations in applicable law (especially for a public body or an HOA), although such questions are beyond the scope of this forum.

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, Guest NES said:

“There is nothing wrong with attempting to persuade people outside of a meeting of the assembly.  There is a lot wrong with trampling the rights of members, and a quick previous question is almost always seen as doing just that.“

Can you expand on persuading people outside a meeting, and can you also expand on how members rights can be trampled upon, possibly with examples?

 I believe the board that I am a member of currently thinks that any communications outside of a meeting between board members is not legal which I know is not the case.  It is my belief that they have been told by the president not to communicate with other members... if they have been told (incorrectly) that this is illegal, is that seeing as intimidation of any kind, or is the president just misinformed, and in turn, mid-informing others?

Thanks for any help.

 

Please don't post questions related to your particular situation in someone else's topic. Thanks.