Procedural Rules and 23:6

[JustinPappano]

Hi all

Suppose that a group adopts a motion stating that ABC committee is delegated a task to review applicants for an honour with a framework of how to do so in the motion.

If the ABC committee then recommends John Smith for the award, and the group adopts that recommendation, if later it is found out that the ABC committee did not review the applicants using the framework set out is the original motion to is rewarding John Smith a continuing breach as a motion is in affect that prescribes the method of reviewing candidates? Or is it not a continuing breach as the motion adopted does not conflict with the already adopted motion but rather the procedure was not followed? 

[J. J.]

On 2/8/2022 at 12:05 PM, JustinPappano said:

Hi all

Suppose that a group adopts a motion stating that ABC committee is delegated a task to review applicants for an honour with a framework of how to do so in the motion.

If the ABC committee then recommends John Smith for the award, and the group adopts that recommendation, if later it is found out that the ABC committee did not review the applicants using the framework set out is the original motion to is rewarding John Smith a continuing breach as a motion is in affect that prescribes the method of reviewing candidates? Or is it not a continuing breach as the motion adopted does not conflict with the already adopted motion but rather the procedure was not followed? 

Without knowing the details of the framework. it is impossible to say for sure.  However, it is likely that it did not create a breach of a continuing nature, because they are fairly hard to create. 

[Atul Kapur]

The latter. The committee members, however, could now be censured or disciplined for not following the instructions they were given.

It sounds like this committee report should have followed 51:7 and shown how they followed the instructions in the referral motion.