Convention Committee Power RE Resolutions

[ParliamentaryBuff]

How much authority does a Convention committee, created by the President [1] to receive resolutions at convention, other than the Resolutions Committee, have in disposing of those resolutions where they are not explicitly given any particular powers? Specifically, can they (extensively) revise a resolution, and submit the revised resolution to the body as their own? My (possibly naive) interpretation is that their report would have to start with the original resolution and explicitly list each recommended amendment, not simply substitute their resolution for the original and recommend adoption, with the original never reaching the assembly.

Example: I submit a resolution to enlarge our legal team e.g. "maintain a legal team of 3 lawyers by hiring one additional lawyer". The Policy Committee amends it to mean the reverse e.g. "maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one lawyer". The resolution that comes before the assembly is the committee's version to the body with the committee - not me - listed as the source, with the committee reporting "the committee recommends the resolution to maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one additional lawyer be adopted". I would think they would have to start with my resolution and report that "the committee recommends resolution [reference to mine as submitted] be... amended by [list each change]... and thus amended be adopted".

The basis for my view that they would have to do the latter is RONR 12th Ed. 59:81 - "When the committee recommends amendments to a resolution, in cases where it is not empowered to incorporate them itself, its chairman reports as follows: ...recommends that the resolution relating to... be amended by... and that, as thus amended, the resolution be adopted.." However, that is about the Resolutions Committee and here another committee is taking over part of the traditional work of that committee.

I also rely on the general committee rule: "Generally... has less authority to act independently for the society... than a board is usually understood to have. Thus, if the committee is to do more than report its findings or recommendations to the assembly, it may be empowered to act for the society only on specific instructions" 50:4, RONR 12th ed.

Here's some background info...

1. Bylaws: "The President may appoint such other convention committees for the convention as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient and expeditious conduct of its business. Each such committee shall make a report of its deliberations and recommendations to the convention delegates for such consideration and approval as may be required."

2. Some of the committees thus created (i.e. not explicitly named in the bylaws) are the Policy Committee & Legislative Committee.

Thanks!

[Rob Elsman]

I think you would have to examine the standing rules of the convention to know what this committee can and cannot do.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

How much authority does a Convention committee, created by the President [1] to receive resolutions at convention, other than the Resolutions Committee, have in disposing of those resolutions where they are not explicitly given any particular powers?

None.

2 hours ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

The basis for my view that they would have to do the latter is RONR 12th Ed. 59:81 - "When the committee recommends amendments to a resolution, in cases where it is not empowered to incorporate them itself, its chairman reports as follows: ...recommends that the resolution relating to... be amended by... and that, as thus amended, the resolution be adopted.." However, that is about the Resolutions Committee and here another committee is taking over part of the traditional work of that committee.

It would seem to me that if a committee is performing the functions of the Resolutions Committee for items of a particular class, the rules in RONR pertaining to the Resolutions Committee are equally applicable to those committees.

2 hours ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

Example: I submit a resolution to enlarge our legal team e.g. "maintain a legal team of 3 lawyers by hiring one additional lawyer". The Policy Committee amends it to mean the reverse e.g. "maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one lawyer". The resolution that comes before the assembly is the committee's version to the body with the committee - not me - listed as the source, with the committee reporting "the committee recommends the resolution to maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one additional lawyer be adopted". I would think they would have to start with my resolution and report that "the committee recommends resolution [reference to mine as submitted] be... amended by [list each change]... and thus amended be adopted".

If the committee is not specifically granted the power to incorporate its amendments into resolutions referred to it by the organization's rules, I agree that the committee would have to start with the resolution submitted to it and recommend the adoption of its proposed amendment.

2 hours ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

1. Bylaws: "The President may appoint such other convention committees for the convention as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient and expeditious conduct of its business. Each such committee shall make a report of its deliberations and recommendations to the convention delegates for such consideration and approval as may be required."

This rule does not appear to grant the committee to incorporate its own amendments into the resolutions submitted to it.

I concur with Mr. Elsman, however, that the convention standing rules may well have more to say regarding the powers of this committee.

Edited January 26, 2021 at 01:02 AM by Josh Martin

[ParliamentaryBuff]

14 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think you would have to examine the standing rules of the convention to know what this committee can and cannot do.

Thank you for your reply. The bylaws say:

Rules of Order

Deliberations, including the Executive Board meetings and the Convention, shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order to the extent that such Rules are not superseded by express provisions of the International’s Constitution and By-Laws.

There is a "Committee on Rules of Order", but I would think that they would have the same inherent limitation on their power and would not be able to empower any committee beyond what the bylaws and by extension Robert's Rules allow without approval of the assembly. It doesn't even seem possible for the assembly to authorize such changes, since all these committees conclude their work before the assembly is even in session. Do I seem to be missing anything else?

[ParliamentaryBuff]

15 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I concur with Mr. Elsman, however, that the convention standing rules may well have more to say regarding the powers of this committee.

I checked the rules from the previous convention, as I assume that template will be proposed for this convention, with minor modifications (e.g. update the dates and times).

Rule No. 1: Before there can be debate on a resolution, the Convention Committee to which that resolution has been referred, shall have the right to report on the resolution and to give the reasons for the Committee’s recommendations. Only after the Committee has moved consideration of the resolution can general debate on the resolution proceed.

 

Rule No. 2: The manner of reporting by Committees shall be as follows:

 

1. If the Committee makes revisions, modifications, or other changes in the resolution as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the resolution as revised. An ‘aye’ vote will be in favor of the adoption of the resolution as revised by the Committee.”

2. If the Committee offers a substitute resolution as an amendment in the place of the resolution or resolutions as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the substitute resolution.”

Rule #2 seems to potentially implicitly give the committee more power, or does it?  If the committee is never explicitly granted the power to "make revisions" or "modifications" or even "substitute", does a provision explaining how they would be reported in those cases thereby authorize such power? I don't want to nitpick, but I feel that authorizing a committee to even substitute a resolution is too suppressive of members' voices in that the original resolution will never even come to the floor for debate.

Edited January 26, 2021 at 04:15 PM by ParliamentaryBuff

[Josh Martin]

26 minutes ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

There is a "Committee on Rules of Order", but I would think that they would have the same inherent limitation on their power and would not be able to empower any committee beyond what the bylaws and by extension Robert's Rules allow without approval of the assembly. It doesn't even seem possible for the assembly to authorize such changes, since all these committees conclude their work before the assembly is even in session. Do I seem to be missing anything else?

The committee could propose a rule authorizing the committees in question to incorporate amendments into the resolutions submitted to them. If the committees in question insist on completing all of their work prior to the convention (or are required to do so by the organization's rules), then I suppose the committees could prepare two different reports - one which incorporates the committee's amendments and one which does not. Which report would be submitted would then depend on whether this rule is ultimately adopted by the convention.

15 minutes ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

I checked the rules from the previous convention, as I assume that template will be proposed for this convention, with minor modifications (e.g. update the dates and times).

Rule No. 1: Before there can be debate on a resolution, the Convention Committee to which that resolution has been referred, shall have the right to report on the resolution and to give the reasons for the Committee’s recommendations. Only after the Committee has moved consideration of the resolution can general debate on the resolution proceed.

This rule does not appear to grant the committees in question the authority to incorporate their own amendments into the resolutions submitted to them.

Edited January 26, 2021 at 04:24 PM by Josh Martin

[ParliamentaryBuff]

5 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This rule does not appear to grant the committees in question the authority to incorporate their own amendments into the resolutions submitted to them.

Thanks again for walking through this with me. I accidentally submitted the form before my post was complete. There was also this:

Rule No. 2: The manner of reporting by Committees shall be as follows:

1. If the Committee makes revisions, modifications, or other changes in the resolution as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the resolution as revised. An ‘aye’ vote will be in favor of the adoption of the resolution as revised by the Committee.”

2. If the Committee offers a substitute resolution as an amendment in the place of the resolution or resolutions as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the substitute resolution.”

Rule #2 seems to potentially implicitly give the committee more power, or does it?  If the committee is never explicitly granted the power to "make revisions" or "modifications" or even "substitute", does a provision explaining how they would be reported in those cases thereby authorize such power? I don't want to nitpick, but I feel that authorizing a committee to even substitute a resolution is too suppressive of members' voices in that the original resolution will never even come to the floor for debate.

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

Rule No. 2: The manner of reporting by Committees shall be as follows:

1. If the Committee makes revisions, modifications, or other changes in the resolution as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the resolution as revised. An ‘aye’ vote will be in favor of the adoption of the resolution as revised by the Committee.”

2. If the Committee offers a substitute resolution as an amendment in the place of the resolution or resolutions as submitted, the reporting member, after summarizing the resolution, giving the Committee’s recommendation and the reasons for its recommendation, shall state, “On behalf of the Committee, I move adoption of the substitute resolution.”

Rule #2 seems to potentially implicitly give the committee more power, or does it?  If the committee is never explicitly granted the power to "make revisions" or "modifications" or even "substitute", does a provision explaining how they would be reported in those cases thereby authorize such power? I don't want to nitpick, but I feel that authorizing a committee to even substitute a resolution is too suppressive of members' voices in that the original resolution will never even come to the floor for debate.

I agree that this rule does appear to authorize the committee more authority in regards to making amendments. As I read the rule, the committee is permitted to submit a revised resolution or a substitute resolution in the place of the original resolution, and it is that resolution which is voted on. The committee is, however, required to inform the convention that the resolution is revised (or a substitute).

It seems to me that if a provision discusses how a committee reports in this manner, that seems to include the power to take the required actions to submit such a report, otherwise the rule doesn't make any sense.

If your view is that "authorizing a committee to even substitute a resolution is too suppressive of members' voices in that the original resolution will never even come to the floor for debate," and if you feel this way, it would seem that you should attempt to speak against the adoption of the rule in question.

I would also note that even if these rules are adopted, a member could certainly move to amend the resolution submitted by the committee, provided this does not conflict with some other rule of the convention. So there could still be a way for the original resolution to come to the floor for debate.

Edited January 26, 2021 at 04:26 PM by Josh Martin

[ParliamentaryBuff]

44 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I agree that this rule does appear to authorize the committee more authority in regards to making amendments.

Hmm... that's what I was afraid of given that I think it will be hard to amend (I picture a sea of sleeping delegates as we delve into parliamentary nuance), although I now wonder if it's even in order to deviate from Robert's Rules given the bylaw provision:

Quote

Rules of Order

Deliberations, including the Executive Board meetings and the Convention, shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order to the extent that such Rules are not superseded by express provisions of the International’s Constitution and By-Laws.

If the bylaws say that the Convention is governor by Robert's Rules unless expressly superseded by the bylaws, it seems to me (not that I'm an expert by any means) that powers beyond Robert's Rules can't be granted "full stop" - not by committee, standing rule, or even the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

12 minutes ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

Hmm... that's what I was afraid of given that I think it will be hard to amend (I picture a sea of sleeping delegates as we delve into parliamentary nuance)

In that event, focus on amending the resolution rather than amending the rule.

12 minutes ago, ParliamentaryBuff said:

If the bylaws say that the Convention is governor by Robert's Rules unless expressly superseded by the bylaws, it seems to me (not that I'm an expert by any means) that powers beyond Robert's Rules can't be granted "full stop" - not by committee, standing rule, or even the assembly.

I would first note that RONR itself authorizes the adoption of special rules of order and convention standing rules which supersede it and, indeed, RONR explicitly discusses rules granting a Resolutions Committee authority of this nature.

"Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict." RONR (12th ed.) 2:16

"The Committee on Standing Rules drafts and submits for consideration a group of rules known as “The Standing Rules of the Convention,” which, as adopted, will apply to that one convention only. These rules must in no way conflict with the bylaws of the society, but (in contrast to ordinary standing rules in a local society) they can involve modifications of rules contained in the parliamentary authority prescribed by the bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 59:27

"In other cases the committee is given the authority to make substantive alterations in a resolution, but only with the sponsor’s consent; while in still others, by vote of the committee—sometimes a two-thirds vote—the substance of the resolution can be altered and the resolution can be reported to the assembly in the altered form as though the committee had originated it." RONR (12th ed.) 59:74

I suppose one could try to argue that the rule in question means that the rules in RONR may be superseded only by provisions in the bylaws, and that the intent of the rule is to prevent the adoption of special rules of order or convention standing rules which conflict with RONR, but I do not personally find this argument to be terribly persuasive.

In the long run, it would seem advisable to amend the bylaws to use the recommended wording in RONR in order to avoid any confusion on this point: https://robertsrules.com/how-to-adopt/

 

Edited January 26, 2021 at 05:31 PM by Josh Martin

[ParliamentaryBuff]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I suppose one could try to argue that the rule in question means that the rules in RONR may be superseded only by provisions in the bylaws, and that the intent of the rule is to prevent the adoption of special rules of order or convention standing rules which conflict with RONR, but I do not personally find this argument to be terribly persuasive.

I guess that's what I was thinking, but I'm not trying to "throw something against the wall" if it doesn't really work, just to make sure we are interpreting appropriately so every member has their voice heard!

Thanks again for all the effort. I think I'm clear now.