Dissolving a Standing Committee Created by Motion?

[Guest ZJ Max]

Hello. I have an interesting situation that I have been trying to research. Would love your thoughts.

Question revolves around Article IX, Section 52 of Robert's Rules. Is there anything in that section that states that a standing committee is automatically dissolved upon election of a new chair?

Background: The body is one established by state law and is made up of about 400 plus elected persons. Let's call them the Executive Committee. The Chair of the org/body - let's call the org "the Party" - is elected every 2 years. The Party and Exec. Committee are governed by state law and by certain rules of the larger statewide org. The body does not have bylaws. (Don't get me started on that!). Committee AB was created by Motion many many years ago and has served as a standing committee (or maybe a special committee since it was created with the specific purpose of being a check on the Chair) and elects its members annually.

Question/Issue: The Chair of the body hired a Parliamentarian who attended the regular meeting of the body and stated that Committee AB ceased to exist pursuant to Article IX Section 52 because  Robert's Rules states that committees end whenever a Chairs new term begins. Chair began their term in 2021. Committee AB continued to meet and elected new officers and members last year and this year, 2022. The Chair gave reports to the AB Committee and the AB Committee gave reports during the larger body's regular meetings. The AB Committee is listed as a standing committee on the body's website to this date.

Was it correct under Robert's Rules for the Chair to unilaterally disband the AB Committee without a vote or motion? Is it true that all committees cease to exist whenever a new Chair is elected?

Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Is there anything in that section that states that a standing committee is automatically dissolved upon election of a new chair?

No. What RONR says on this matter is as follows.

"Since members of standing committees in ordinary societies are appointed for a term corresponding to that of the officers, such a committee is generally required to report at least once a year, usually at the annual meeting, on its activities and everything referred to it during the year. When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes (36); thus such matters normally go over to the new committee. The members of the old committee continue their duties until their successors are chosen.

A special committee—since it is appointed for a specific purpose—continues to exist until the duty assigned to it is accomplished, unless discharged sooner (see 36); and it ceases to exist as soon as the assembly receives its final report. The fact that an annual meeting intervenes does not discharge a special committee. But in a body which ceases to exist or in which the terms of some or all of its members expire at a definite time, like a convention of delegates, a city council, or a board of directors, a special committee expires with the body that appointed it, unless it is appointed expressly to report at a later time. If it does not report, its life expires with that of the body to which it was to report." RONR (12th ed.) 50:29-30

I will note, however, that there is some question as to whether the committee was properly created to begin with (and apparently some question about whether it was a standing or special committee). If the bylaws specify certain standing committees (which is usually the case), then additional standing committees cannot be created except by amending the bylaws, unless the bylaws authorize the creation of additional standing committees.

"If certain standing committees are enumerated in the bylaws, no standing committee aside from those enumerated can be established without amending the bylaws, unless the bylaws also include a provision authorizing the creation of additional standing committees (see also 56:44–48)." RONR (12th ed.) 50:9

Although you make a rather horrifying statement that the organization has no bylaws, so that may complicate matters further.

On 11/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

The body does not have bylaws.

Surely you have some sort of document which is the equivalent of bylaws - which defines, for example, the existence of the organization, the board, the organization's officers, and other such matters.

If not, then this current situation is the least of your organization's problems.

On 11/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Committee AB was created by Motion many many years ago and has served as a standing committee (or maybe a special committee since it was created with the specific purpose of being a check on the Chair) and elects its members annually.

I don't quite understand what all this means, but if the committee is expected to elect its members annually, it would seem the organization anticipated the committee would have continuing existence, which sounds more like a standing committee.

"Standing committees are constituted to perform a continuing function, and remain in existence permanently or for the life of the assembly that establishes them. In an ordinary society, the members of such a committee serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers, or until their successors have been chosen, unless the bylaws or other rules otherwise expressly provide. Thus, a new body of committee members is normally appointed at the beginning of each administration." RONR (12th ed.) 50:7

"A special (select, or ad hoc) committee is a committee appointed, as the need arises, to carry out a specified task, at the completion of which—that is, on presentation of its final report to the assembly—it automatically ceases to exist. 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

On 11/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Was it correct under Robert's Rules for the Chair to unilaterally disband the AB Committee without a vote or motion?

I am not entirely certain. In the event that the committee is, in fact, a standing committee and was properly created, then it was not correct for the chair to unilaterally disband the committee.

In the event that the committee is a special committee, then I think it may have been correct for the chair to disband the committee, since the parent assembly appears to be "a body which ceases to exist or in which the terms of some or all of its members expire at a definite time."

In the event that the committee is a standing committee and was not properly created, then the chair was correct to disband the committee, albeit for the wrong reasoning.

On 11/17/2022 at 12:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Is it true that all committees cease to exist whenever a new Chair is elected?

No.

Edited November 17, 2022 at 07:49 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/17/2022 at 1:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

The Chair of the body hired a Parliamentarian who attended the regular meeting of the body and stated that Committee AB ceased to exist pursuant to Article IX Section 52 because  Robert's Rules states that committees end whenever a Chairs new term begins.

Let's stop right here. This is not a competent parliamentarian. "Article IX Section 52" is almost certainly a reference to the 4th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Revised, which is divided into Articles and Sections. The current edition is the 12th and is titled Rules of Order Newly Revised. Many people who do not know any better quote from the 4th edition because it is the latest version available free online (it is in the public domain because it was published in 1915). By the way, I cannot find anything in the Section 52 of the 4th edition that supports the contention you quoted. 

The 12th edition is divided into Chapters (not Articles) and Sections. Section 52 of the 12th edition is titled "Committee of the Whole and Its Alternate Forms." As @Josh Martin has correctly quoted, committees are covered in §50, which is in Chapter XVI.

I will state more confidently than Mr. Martin that, from your description, this is functioning as a standing committee, with continued existence even though the membership changes.

If your chair insists on continuing to use this parliamentarian, you and like-minded individuals may wish to hire your own parliamentarian to help you.

[Guest ZJ Max]

On 11/17/2022 at 1:11 PM, Josh Martin said:

Surely you have some sort of document which is the equivalent of bylaws - which defines, for example, the existence of the organization, the board, the organization's officers, and other such matters.

If not, then this current situation is the least of your organization's problems.

Thank you for your reply, Josh. A committee was created to develop bylaws but the Chair did not allow them to meet. With respect to the existence of the body/org, it is state law that mandates the existence of the body and the executive committee, and state party rules (it is a political party) govern who the officers are and their responsibilities. Those state rules say that the elected executive committee is allowed the power to create committees.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:01 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Thank you for your reply, Josh. A committee was created to develop bylaws but the Chair did not allow them to meet. With respect to the existence of the body/org, it is state law that mandates the existence of the body and the executive committee, and state party rules (it is a political party) govern who the officers are and their responsibilities. Those state rules say that the elected executive committee is allowed the power to create committees.

Thank you. Based upon these additional facts, my conclusion would be that the standing committee was properly created and that the chair erred in declaring the committee disbanded.

[Guest ZJ Max]

On 11/17/2022 at 1:43 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Let's stop right here. This is not a competent parliamentarian. "Article IX Section 52" is almost certainly a reference to the 4th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Revised, which is divided into Articles and Sections. The current edition is the 12th and is titled Rules of Order Newly Revised. Many people who do not know any better quote from the 4th edition because it is the latest version available free online (it is in the public domain because it was published in 1915). By the way, I cannot find anything in the Section 52 of the 4th edition that supports the contention you quoted. 

The 12th edition is divided into Chapters (not Articles) and Sections. Section 52 of the 12th edition is titled "Committee of the Whole and Its Alternate Forms." As @Josh Martin has correctly quoted, committees are covered in §50, which is in Chapter XVI.

I will state more confidently than Mr. Martin that, from your description, this is functioning as a standing committee, with continued existence even though the membership changes.

If your chair insists on continuing to use this parliamentarian, you and like-minded individuals may wish to hire your own parliamentarian to help you.

Atul, I should have clarified that the citation was from a member since the minutes were not given to us nor was the Zoom recording, despite multiple requests in the past 2 months. We are not sure of the exact citation given by the Parliamentarian.

Also, the argument made by the Chair and Parliamentarian was that the election of a new Chair is what ended the committee's existence - rather than the election of new members to either the Exec Committee or AB Committee.

Is there a way to address this at the next meeting of the body? During the last quarterly meeting, no one knew that the Parliamentarian's statement meant that the AB committee was disbanded because many of us assumed that a motion or vote was needed to disband. We didn't find out until the Chair sent out an email the following week saying AB Committee no longer exists.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/17/2022 at 2:09 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Is there a way to address this at the next meeting of the body?

Certainly. Perhaps some resolution like the following could be adopted.

"Resolved, that the Executive Committee send a communication to the members of the AB Committee correcting the erroneous statement by the chair that the committee has been "disbanded" and clarifying that the AB Committee shall continue to exist until otherwise determined by the Executive Committee."

You may wish to study the rules for Point of Order and Appeal (Sections 23 and 24) if you anticipate the chair will continue to insist the committee is disbanded, and also study RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-15 (Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting) if you anticipate the chair will be especially stubborn in that regard.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/17/2022 at 1:45 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

Question revolves around Article IX, Section 52 of Robert's Rules.

You appear to be using a version of Robert's Rules that is more than a century out of date.

The current editions are 

• Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. and
• Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, In Brief, 3rd edition.

 

Edited November 19, 2022 at 01:25 AM by Gary Novosielski
fix font.

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

On 11/17/2022 at 12:01 PM, Guest ZJ Max said:

A committee was created to develop bylaws but the Chair did not allow them to meet.

How is it that the Chair "did not allow  them to meet?"  Unless you have some really unusual rules giving some unusual powers, the organization's chair has no power to forbid a committee from meeting.  And if you mean the committee chair, well, they're obligated to call a meeting to carry out the purpose of the committee, and if they don't, RONR allows other committee members to call a meeting.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/18/2022 at 7:11 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

How is it that the Chair "did not allow  them to meet?"  Unless you have some really unusual rules giving some unusual powers, the organization's chair has no power to forbid a committee from meeting.  And if you mean the committee chair, well, they're obligated to call a meeting to carry out the purpose of the committee, and if they don't, RONR allows other committee members to call a meeting.

And in case the OP hasn't yet acquired a copy of the 12th edition, the relevant paragraph goes like this:

50:21 Committee Meetings.
When a committee has been appointed, its chairman (or first-named member temporarily acting—see 13:18) should call it together.⁶ If some members of the committee believe that the chairman has failed to call this initial meeting or any subsequent meeting when necessary, a meeting of the committee may be called by any two of its members, unless (such as for very large committees) the assembly’s rules or instructions prescribe, or empower the committee itself to require, a larger number. It is the responsibility of the person or persons calling a committee meeting to ensure that reasonable notice of its time and place is sent to every committee member. The quorum in a committee is a majority of its membership unless the assembly has prescribed a different quorum (40).

 

Edited November 19, 2022 at 01:37 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest ZJ Max]

On 11/18/2022 at 6:11 PM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

How is it that the Chair "did not allow  them to meet?"  Unless you have some really unusual rules giving some unusual powers, the organization's chair has no power to forbid a committee from meeting.  And if you mean the committee chair, well, they're obligated to call a meeting to carry out the purpose of the committee, and if they don't, RONR allows other committee members to call a meeting.

The Chair of the subcommittee was ill and the Chair of the organization said that the committee would not meet until the subcommittee chair felt better and that was months ago and they have yet to meet. No idea why no one else didn't call for a meeting.

 

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

Hopefully the committee chair isn't out of commission for long, but even if he were, that doesn't prevent the committee from meeting.  Two committee members under 50:21 (as posted above) could call a committee meeting, and if the committee chair is still sick on the date of the called meeting, the committee could elect a chair pro tem to chair that particular meeting.  If the organization chair attempts to assert that he has forbidden the committee from meeting, ask him to show you a citation in the law, rules, or RONR which gives him such a power.  It's not in RONR.  When he can't show you a citation, the committee should forge ahead with its work.