Weldon Merritt Posted December 21, 2020 at 02:17 AM Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 02:17 AM The question is somewhat related to my previous thread, but different enough that I thought I should start a new thread. Suppose the bylaws clearly and unequivocally give the president the sole authority to appoint the chair and members of all committees. (No exception for when the president is absent, or any other exception.) Suppose further that the assembly adopts a motion, in the president's absence, creating a special committee (which is within the assembly's authority) and naming the chair and members. May the president ignore the part of the motion that purports to name the chair and members, and appoint his own choices (which might include all or some of the ones named in the motion), or should the motion be ruled null and void on the ground that it is in violation of the bylaws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted December 21, 2020 at 03:08 AM Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 03:08 AM (edited) RONR does not deal with the issue of severability directly. RONR (12th ed.) 10:26, item "1)", says, "No main motion...", which I take to mean that the parts of a main motion are not severable as to which parts are, and which parts are not, in order; likewise, RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item "b)", says, "a main motion...", which further leads me to think that a main motion is not severable as to which parts do, and which parts do not, constitute a continuing breach. Edited December 21, 2020 at 03:09 AM by Rob Elsman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted December 21, 2020 at 03:24 AM Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 03:24 AM (edited) Rob, I agree that the literal reading of the rule supports your interpretation. Now suppose that the president is perfectly happy with the chair and members named in the motion, and goes ahead and names them to the committee. Does that cure the breach? Edited December 21, 2020 at 05:24 PM by Weldon Merritt Edited to correct a typo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted December 21, 2020 at 04:37 PM Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 04:37 PM Well, "no harm, no foul", as they say. 😄 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted December 21, 2020 at 05:32 PM Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 05:32 PM 47 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said: Well, "no harm, no foul", as they say. 😄 I agree. Now if instead, he names different members. and no one raises an immediate point of order, could a legitimate point be raised later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted December 21, 2020 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 05:37 PM I think I would have to answer two different ways, depending on further facts, as follows: 1) If the special committee has not risen and reported, a Point of Order could be raised; however, 2) If the special committee has risen and reported, the breach is healed, and what is done is done. No Point of Order is in order thereafter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted December 21, 2020 at 05:46 PM Author Report Share Posted December 21, 2020 at 05:46 PM I think you are absolutely right! I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts