Assembly directing special rules for executive board

[Atul Kapur]

In another thread, on setting a 75% voting threshold for a committee to adopt a motion/recommendation, @Daniel H. Honemann stated: 

Quote

A motion to give such an instruction to a committee will require only a majority vote for its adoption.  RONR, 12th ed., 13:8 (d).

I, of course, agree with Mr. Honemann. It leads to a related question.

What vote would be required for the assembly to direct the executive board to follow a similar rule? Or, to generalize, what vote is required for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself (for example, requiring the board to include the names of seconders in its minutes or to lower the threshold to require a ballot vote, without changing the rule for membership meetings)?

[Guest Puzzling]

I did ask the same question before see

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36201-rules-of-order-for-board/?tab=comments#comment-215383

But even after this what is the rule for standing committees,  do they follow the rules for boards (because both are in the bylaws) or follow the rules for ad hoc committees? 

 

[Dan Honemann]

I think this is the relevant portion of Mr. Martin's response in the thread referred to by Guest Puzzling:

"If the general membership of a society wishes to adopt rules governing the meetings of a subordinate board of directors, it is free to do so. Such rules take the same vote to adopt and amend them as they would normally. Adopting a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, both for adopting a special rule of order and for amending a special rule of order which has previously been adopted."

 

[Richard Brown]

12 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

What vote would be required for the assembly to direct the executive board to follow a similar rule? 

I agree with the response above by Mr. Honemann in which he quotes Mr. Martin. I also agree with Mr. Martin’s statement. I think it is clear that §13.8 applies ONLY to instructions to a committee.

[Guest Puzzling]

9 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

But even after this what is the rule for standing committees,  do they follow the rules for boards (because both are in the bylaws) or follow the rules for ad hoc committees? 

 

[Dan Honemann]

Standing committees follow the rules for standing committees.

[Shmuel Gerber]

[Note: I've moved this topic to the Advanced Discussion forum.]

23 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

In another thread, on setting a 75% voting threshold for a committee to adopt a motion/recommendation, @Daniel H. Honemann stated: 

Quote

A motion to give such an instruction to a committee will require only a majority vote for its adoption.  RONR, 12th ed., 13:8 (d).

I, of course, agree with Mr. Honemann. It leads to a related question.

What vote would be required for the assembly to direct the executive board to follow a similar rule? Or, to generalize, what vote is required for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself (for example, requiring the board to include the names of seconders in its minutes or to lower the threshold to require a ballot vote, without changing the rule for membership meetings)?

 

12 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think this is the relevant portion of Mr. Martin's response in the thread referred to by Guest Puzzling:

"If the general membership of a society wishes to adopt rules governing the meetings of a subordinate board of directors, it is free to do so. Such rules take the same vote to adopt and amend them as they would normally. Adopting a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, both for adopting a special rule of order and for amending a special rule of order which has previously been adopted."

This is an interesting question.

The new rule in the 12th edition alluded to here regarding instructions to committees (13:8(d)) states, "The motion to Commit requires a majority vote for its adoption even when it contains instructions that suspend, modify, or conflict with rules of order that would otherwise apply to meetings of the committee. (See 9:35 regarding the adoption of instructions authorizing a committee to hold electronic meetings.)"

And RONR also states (12th ed., 49:7), "[N]o action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see 56:41 and 23:9). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society’s assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35)."

So I would be inclined to think (although I am open to hearing the counterarguments) that the same principle applies with respect to a subordinate board, and that for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself requires only a majority vote (or the vote to Amend Something Previously Adopted, if applicable). In other words, from the society's perspective, rules of order imposed on its board would be at the level of standing rules of the society.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

This is an interesting question.

Thank you. I try to keep things interesting.

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

So I would be inclined to think (although I am open to hearing the counterarguments) that the same principle applies with respect to a subordinate board, and that for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself requires only a majority vote (or the vote to Amend Something Previously Adopted, if applicable). In other words, from the society's perspective, rules of order imposed on its board would be at the level of standing rules of the society.

Interesting response. If I understand the logic correctly, you are implying that committees and boards are treated similarly in this regard as they are both subordinate bodies of the society. 

A question to further my understanding of the logic:

2:2 says, "The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), ..."

So would you say that a parent body of a national organization could, by adopting a motion at the level of its standing rules, impose a rule of order on its subordinate local bodies? 

 

 

[Guest Puzzling]

 

My two cents:

I see it differently (and that is also why I make a difference between ad-hoc and standing committees ) 

An ad hoc committee does not exist prior to the motion to establish it , and therefore (like adopting the bylaws for the first time) only needs a majority for its rules of order.

A standing committee does have continuing existence and therefore established rules of order , for changing these rules the rules for "amending something previously adopted" needs to be followed.

[Dan Honemann]

RONR, 12th ed., 13:8(d) deals with nothing other than the inclusion of instructions to a committee in a motion referring a pending question to that committee. It has nothing at all to do with imposing rules of order on a subordinate board, or on any other type of assembly.

The power granted by 13:8(d) is not unlimited, as evidenced by what is said in 9:35, to which reference is made. In my opinion, 13:8(d) should not be considered as being applicable to any standing committee of the type described in 50:8, and certainly not to a society's executive board. 

 

 

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

RONR, 12th ed., 13:8(d) deals with nothing other than the inclusion of instructions to a committee in a motion referring a pending question to that committee. It has nothing at all to do with imposing rules of order on a subordinate board, or on any other type of assembly.

The power granted by 13:8(d) is not unlimited, as evidenced by what is said in 9:35, to which reference is made. In my opinion, 13:8(d) should not be considered as being applicable to any standing committee of the type described in 50:8, and certainly not to a society's executive board. 

 

 

If I understand this correctly, the difference is due to a board being a type of assembly, while a committee is not.  Is that accurate?

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If I understand this correctly, the difference is due to a board being a type of assembly, while a committee is not.  Is that accurate?

I think it's a substantial part of it.

[George Mervosh]

Okay then, what would be the vote required for the assembly to instruct its subordinate board to use the procedure in small boards for all of its meetings?  At first blush it doesn't seem any rule is being suspended, modified, or conflicted with by this instruction.

[J. J.]

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think it's a substantial part of it.

I'm not certain that  would agree with your comments regarding a standing committee, but I do in relation to a board.

Why would you say that in regard to a standing committee? 

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, George Mervosh said:

Okay then, what would be the vote required for the assembly to instruct its subordinate board to use the procedure in small boards for all of its meetings?  At first blush it doesn't seem any rule is being suspended, modified, or conflicted with by this instruction.

Wouldn't that violate the rule established in RONR? 

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I'm not certain that  would agree with your comments regarding a standing committee, but I do in relation to a board.

Why would you say that in regard to a standing committee? 

I'm saying it only in regard to standing committees of the type described in 50:8.

[J. J.]

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm saying it only in regard to standing committees of the type described in 50:8.

Well, I really cannot think of any other type of standing committee than those mentioned in 50:8. 

Okay, to explore you position (and I am still uncertain) would the instruction by majority vote fail because it violate a rule that is in the nature of a rule of order? 

[Dan Honemann]

6 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Well, I really cannot think of any other type of standing committee than those mentioned in 50:8. 

Surely you jest.  

 

[J. J.]

Just now, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Surely you jest.  

 

Okay, I can see your point on that. 

 

[George Mervosh]

32 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Okay then, what would be the vote required for the assembly to instruct its subordinate board to use the procedure in small boards for all of its meetings?  At first blush it doesn't seem any rule is being suspended, modified, or conflicted with by this instruction.

 

29 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Wouldn't that violate the rule established in RONR? 

Which one?

[Dan Honemann]

3 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

 

Which one?

It violates the rule in PL (the first full sentence on p. 251) and in HPL (I forget which page).

[J. J.]

19 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

 

Which one?

When discussing the 50:8 standing committee , that committee must be regulated by a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  A regular motion cannot supersede the requirements of a rule of order, except by a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership; an instruction that is, in effect, a rule of order, would have to meet that voting threshold. 

The rule at 50:26, however, gives me more doubt about agreeing that a special rule would be needed. 

[Dan Honemann]

10 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The rule at 50:26, however, gives me more doubt about agreeing that a special rule would be needed. 

Mr. Mervosh was referring to instructions to a board, not to a committee.