When are Committee Requests out of order?

[Tomm]

The following motion was made by a Director but the chair wouldn't allow it saying that it was "out of order"?

The Motion: Lawn Bowl Committee – Director John Doe – On behalf of the Lawn Bowl Committee, I move that the RCSC Board of Directors authorize the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to review the impact to all members outside activities at the Mt. View Center. The committee’s task is to acquire affected member input and explore alternatives during the period disrupted facilities, also the effect of denying members activities at Mt. View for an extended period of time, which has not been historically done before.

The chair stated RONR 39:5 and a Bylaw. The Bylaw states: G. Lawn Bowling Advisory Committee: The purpose of the Lawn Bowling Advisory Committee is to assist in the promotion and interest in lawn bowling, encourage fellowship amongst lawn bowlers, gather input from Cardholders and recommend changes to the Board in lawn bowling policies, fees, operations and facilities as a result.

The concern: the recreation facility is going to be renovated and all the activities at that facility will no longer be available during the process.

Question: Does the motion really violate the Committee's purview? Was it, in fact, in order?

[Rob Elsman]

Since it appears from the facts that an appeal from the decision was not raised, the ruling of the chair stands.

[Tomm]

On 5/26/2022 at 6:45 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Since it appears from the facts that an appeal from the decision was not raised, the ruling of the chair stands.

I agree, but in your opinion, does it appear that the motion violated or over-stepped its bounds as a committee?

[Phil D]

I am a relatively vulgar practitioner of RONR, so you should take my thoughts with a grain of salt.

Let us proceed from some basics.

Any member may raise a motion proposing the sacred, almighty Assembly take some action. A member may raise a motion even if it is beyond the Assembly's established scope, if membership authorizes introduction of the motion by a 2/3 majority. 

Normally a motion requires a second. However, when a member of a committee makes a motion on behalf of a committee, the requirement of a second is waived.

I have not found a citation from RONR that strips the committee of this privilege merely because it has exceeded its scope, or even the scope of the broader organization. Nor do I think 39:5's nullification of actions in contravention of the bylaws or procedural laws removes that privilege. 

I tend to think your committee did exceed its scope. The motion raised is not really related to Lawn Bowling. Another red flag for me is that they are asking another committee be appointed to do something. While I can't lay hands on the citation, I had been under the impression that it was out of order to form an Ad Hoc Committee to do something that is within the purview of a Standing Committee. In other words, if it's within the Lawn Bowling Committee's purview to gather the information they want gathered, then they cannot ask an Ad Hoc Committee to do it for them. If they could ask for an Ad Hoc Committee to do that thing, it would be outside their purview. Could be wrong. That's just what I had thought.

However, the general power of members to raise a motion seems like it should have given you some ability to get your motion heard, even if not with the imprimatur of the Lawn Bowling Committee. 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/26/2022 at 7:53 PM, Tomm said:

The following motion was made by a Director but the chair wouldn't allow it saying that it was "out of order"?

The Motion: Lawn Bowl Committee – Director John Doe – On behalf of the Lawn Bowl Committee, I move that the RCSC Board of Directors authorize the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee to review the impact to all members outside activities at the Mt. View Center. The committee’s task is to acquire affected member input and explore alternatives during the period disrupted facilities, also the effect of denying members activities at Mt. View for an extended period of time, which has not been historically done before.

The chair stated RONR 39:5 and a Bylaw. The Bylaw states: G. Lawn Bowling Advisory Committee: The purpose of the Lawn Bowling Advisory Committee is to assist in the promotion and interest in lawn bowling, encourage fellowship amongst lawn bowlers, gather input from Cardholders and recommend changes to the Board in lawn bowling policies, fees, operations and facilities as a result.

The concern: the recreation facility is going to be renovated and all the activities at that facility will no longer be available during the process.

Question: Does the motion really violate the Committee's purview? Was it, in fact, in order?

I am in agreement with the chair that the proposed motion exceeds the scope of the committee's assigned duties, and that the motion was out of order as a motion on behalf the committee on that basis. Under RONR, the member could, however, have simply waited until New Business and made the motion as an individual member instead, since there does not appear to be anything about the motion itself which is improper, at least based upon the facts presented.

I would also note that the chair's citation of 39:5 is not really apt, although I think the chair nonetheless reached the correct conclusion. The rule in 39:5 relates to whether the motion itself conflicts with the bylaws, which does not appear to be the case.

On 5/26/2022 at 9:49 PM, Phil D said:

While I can't lay hands on the citation, I had been under the impression that it was out of order to form an Ad Hoc Committee to do something that is within the purview of a Standing Committee. In other words, if it's within the Lawn Bowling Committee's purview to gather the information they want gathered, then they cannot ask an Ad Hoc Committee to do it for them. If they could ask for an Ad Hoc Committee to do that thing, it would be outside their purview. Could be wrong. That's just what I had thought.

This is correct. "A special committee may not be appointed to perform a task that falls within the assigned function of an existing standing committee." RONR (12th ed.) 50:10

I don't quite agree with your follow-up reasoning. I think there are conceivably situations where it would be appropriate for a standing committee to recommend the creation of a special committee, but I agree that this is not one of them.

Edited May 27, 2022 at 11:20 AM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/27/2022 at 7:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

the proposed motion exceeds the scope of the committee's assigned duties, and that the motion was out of order as a motion on behalf the committee on that basis.

What specific rules in RONR would you refer to in support of such a ruling?

[Josh Martin]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:46 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

What specific rules in RONR would you refer to in support of such a ruling?

I have been unable to find a specific rule in RONR on this subject. The best I can come up with is "Committees of organized societies operate under the bylaws, the parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to them." RONR (12th ed.) 50:26