Referral With Power and Subsequent Action by the Assembly

[Weldon Merritt]

Suppose a motion is pending to adopt a particular ritual as part of opening ceremonies. During consideration, a motion is adopted to refer the pending motion to the board of directors with power to act.

First, is there any reason that referral of a motion to adopt what amounts to either a standing rule or a special rule of order (I'm not sure which and I'm not sure it matters), as opposed to, for example, a motion to paint the meeting room wall or to buy new carpeting, would not be in order? I see nothing in RONR that suggest it would not be in order, but I want to see if I might have missed something.

If such a referral is in order, and the board adopts the ritual, either as proposed or with an amendment, and reports it to the assembly. Suppose a member does not like the motion as adopted by the board and wants to either get rid of it or change it in some way.  Do the rules for Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, including the vote requirement, apply just as if the motion had been adopted by the assembly in the first place? It seems to me that the answer is yes, but again I want to see if there is a nuance I might have missed.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/27/2023 at 11:30 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

First, is there any reason that referral of a motion to adopt what amounts to either a standing rule or a special rule of order (I'm not sure which and I'm not sure it matters), as opposed to, for example, a motion to paint the meeting room wall or to buy new carpeting, would not be in order? I see nothing in RONR that suggest it would not be in order, but I want to see if I might have missed something.

I think it would be in order in either case, but it seems to me that to adopt a referral “with power” in regard to a special rule of order would require the same vote as adopting a special rule of order.

On 2/27/2023 at 11:30 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

If such a referral is in order, and the board adopts the ritual, either as proposed or with an amendment, and reports it to the assembly. Suppose a member does not like the motion as adopted by the board and wants to either get rid of it or change it in some way.  Do the rules for Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, including the vote requirement, apply just as if the motion had been adopted by the assembly in the first place? It seems to me that the answer is yes, but again I want to see if there is a nuance I might have missed.

Yes, I think so.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/27/2023 at 11:37 AM, Josh Martin said:

I think it would be in order in either case, but it seems to me that to adopt a referral “with power” in regard to a special rule of order would require the same vote as adopting a special rule of order.

I didn't think of that, but now that you mention it I believe you are correct  Do you (or does anyone) have a thought on whether an opening ceremony is a standing rule or a special rule of order?

[Atul Kapur]

The opening ceremony is listed as an Optional Heading in addition to the Standard Order of Business (41:28 ff) but I'm wondering if it really counts as "business" as no business is conducted. Perhaps why the word "proceedings" is used in that paragraph? If it's business, special rule of order — if not business, a standing rule.

I'm leaning towards Not Business, so standing rule.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/27/2023 at 12:48 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Do you (or does anyone) have a thought on whether an opening ceremony is a standing rule or a special rule of order?

I'm thinking it would be a standing rule because it appears to me that opening ceremonies are not considered "business" by RONR.  It appears to me that the business of the meeting does not start until after the call to order and opening ceremonies. 3:15. 41:8, 41:30 (RONR, 12th ed.).

[Richard Brown]

To answer your original question:

On 2/27/2023 at 12:30 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

 . . . If such a referral is in order, and the board adopts the ritual, either as proposed or with an amendment, and reports it to the assembly. Suppose a member does not like the motion as adopted by the board and wants to either get rid of it or change it in some way.  Do the rules for Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, including the vote requirement, apply just as if the motion had been adopted by the assembly in the first place?

Yes, I think the rules in RONR for Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would apply.  This strikes me as no different than the assembly reversing any other action taken by its subordinate board with power to act.  Official Interpretation 2006-13 explains it pretty well, but the citations are to the 10th edition:  https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/27/2023 at 1:30 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Suppose a motion is pending to adopt a particular ritual as part of opening ceremonies. During consideration, a motion is adopted to refer the pending motion to the board of directors with power to act.

First, is there any reason that referral of a motion to adopt what amounts to either a standing rule or a special rule of order (I'm not sure which and I'm not sure it matters), as opposed to, for example, a motion to paint the meeting room wall or to buy new carpeting, would not be in order? I see nothing in RONR that suggest it would not be in order, but I want to see if I might have missed something.

 

On 2/27/2023 at 1:37 PM, Josh Martin said:

I think it would be in order in either case, but it seems to me that to adopt a referral “with power” in regard to a special rule of order would require the same vote as adopting a special rule of order.

I agree with those who have said that a motion to adopt a particular ritual as part of opening ceremonies is a motion to adopt a standing rule, thus requiring only a majority vote for its adoption.  I see no reason why such a motion cannot, by majority vote, be referred to the board, with power to act.

But suppose a motion is pending to adopt a special rule of order, thus requiring either previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption.  Questions arise as to whether such a motion can properly be referred to a board (or any committee) with power to act, and if so, by what vote?  Taken at face value, 13:7(7) and 13:8(d) seem to indicate that a majority vote is all that is required.  I agree that this can't (or certainly shouldn't) be the case.  Q and A 72 in PL (p. 436) seems to raise a question as to whether such a motion can properly be referred "with power", and if so, what exactly does "with power" mean in this case?

Any thoughts?

 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/28/2023 at 7:44 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Any thoughts?

None that would resolve the issues you have raised. I was hoping that someone else might be able to offer some pertinent thoughts.

[puzzling]

On 2/28/2023 at 2:44 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Any thoughts

My thoughts

 

In my idea special rules of order can only  be amended by the membership meeting  (except if the bylaws prescribe or allow it)

I see it a bit as bylaws amendments if nothing is in the bylaws over who can amend them then only a general membership meeting can amend them, not the board.

Also bylaw amendmending  cannot be delegated to the board (even if the board has full authority between the membership meetings)

For rules of order (of the membership meetings) I think something similar should be the case. Like while the board can amend its own rules of order it cannot delegate amending the board rules to a committee under the general no-delegation rule.

For standing rules I do think the amending can be delegated.

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:44 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But suppose a motion is pending to adopt a special rule of order, thus requiring either previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption.  Questions arise as to whether such a motion can properly be referred to a board (or any committee) with power to act, and if so, by what vote?  Taken at face value, 13:7(7) and 13:8(d) seem to indicate that a majority vote is all that is required.  I agree that this can't (or certainly shouldn't) be the case.  Q and A 72 in PL (p. 436) seems to raise a question as to whether such a motion can properly be referred "with power", and if so, what exactly does "with power" mean in this case?

[Rushing in where angels fear to tread...]

An important distinction between this situation and that in Q72 is the fact that, here, there is an alternative vote threshold that does not require notice. From Q72, "An assembly cannot give to a committee a power that it does not possess," specifically to adopt an amendment to the constitution without notice.

Here, the assembly does possess the power to adopt the special rule of order without notice, by the vote of the majority of the entire membership. So a motion to refer with power could be interpreted as a motion "To adopt the special rule [details to be decided by the committee]." Such a motion would require a vote of the majority of the entire membership. For the purpose of discussion, I am going to argue that, while this set of circumstances is highly unusual and could be seen as backwards (adoption preceding setting of the specifics), if the majority of the entire membership has enough trust in the committee then it could decide to give the committee such a great power.

As an analogy, 12:105 allows a motion to be adopted with a blank and 13:10(b) allow incomplete motions to commit to be adopted; although 12:105 and 13:11 require the motion to be completed immediately, in this circumstance that decision has been forestalled by the fact that the committee has been given the power to complete the motion and put it into effect.

This response stresses the sentence in Answer 72: An assembly cannot give to a committee a power that it does not possess."
If, instead, one wishes to emphasize the sentence that follows ("The power given by that vote was the power to decide precisely what change ought to be made in the name of the association, and to see that the proper steps were taken to secure the adoption of the change, including giving notice of the proposed amendment.") one could reasonably conclude that the committee cannot be given the power to put into effect a new special rule. 

[J. J.]

On 2/28/2023 at 9:44 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

 

But suppose a motion is pending to adopt a special rule of order, thus requiring either previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption.  Questions arise as to whether such a motion can properly be referred to a board (or any committee) with power to act, and if so, by what vote?  Taken at face value, 13:7(7) and 13:8(d) seem to indicate that a majority vote is all that is required.  I agree that this can't (or certainly shouldn't) be the case.  Q and A 72 in PL (p. 436) seems to raise a question as to whether such a motion can properly be referred "with power", and if so, what exactly does "with power" mean in this case?

Any thoughts?

 

 

A special rule could be adopted to grant the committee the power to create a special rule.  I would not have a problem with a committee being given the power to act, provided that it was by a vote necessary to adopt a special rule.  At least to an extent 8:12 would come into play, as would 23:6 e as there is a notice requirement.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/1/2023 at 10:39 AM, J. J. said:

A special rule could be adopted to grant the committee the power to create a special rule.  I would not have a problem with a committee being given the power to act, provided that it was by a vote necessary to adopt a special rule.  At least to an extent 8:12 would come into play, as would 23:6 e as there is a notice requirement.

What, exactly, is the notice requirement?  If the committee is to adopt a special rule in behalf of the entire membership, to whom and how does it give notice?

[J. J.]

On 3/1/2023 at 2:09 PM, Dan Honemann said:

What, exactly, is the notice requirement?  If the committee is to adopt a special rule in behalf of the entire membership, to whom and how does it give notice?

It does not need to give notice if authorized by a vote of the majority of the entire membership (MEM).  23:6 e would apply if the MEM was not attained.  MEM effectively serves as a substitute for notice in this case.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/1/2023 at 4:36 PM, J. J. said:

It does not need to give notice if authorized by a vote of the majority of the entire membership (MEM).  23:6 e would apply if the MEM was not attained.  MEM effectively serves as a substitute for notice in this case.

It would be helpful if you would expound upon this a bit. 

[J. J.]

On 3/1/2023 at 7:49 PM, Dan Honemann said:

It would be helpful if you would expound upon this a bit. 

First of all, the MEM vote is an alternative to a 2/3 vote with notice to adopt a special rule.  If the assembly were to "adopt" a special rule without either previous notice or without an MEM vote, that adoption would be void as a violation of 23:6e. 

The assembly could grant the committee the ability to adopt a special rule, by the vote needed to adopt a special rule.  A MEM could tie the hands of future sessions, by granting the power to create the specific special rule to the committee.  Doing so would not violate 23:6e. 

[Gregory Carlson]

In my opinion, even if a body refers the adoption of a special rule of order to a committee and gives that committee power to act by the vote required to adopt a special rule of order, if that committee amends the special rule of order in any way, then it should have to go back to the assembly with the appropriate new notice or vote requirement.

To me, the assembly should only be able to pass on the ability to adopt a proposed special rule of order (which it should do so by the vote required to adopt a special rule of order) and at that point, the committee could then adopt the referred rule by majority vote.

The main reason I come to this conclusion is that it seems that a committee could have too much power to expand upon a potential special rule of order (which would negate the effect of notice had it been given to the assembly).  The way around that notice requirement is by way of a vote of the majority of the membership of the assembly - not a vote of the committee.  The committee could certainly propose amendments or substitutes to the rule and report back, but special rules of order affect the assembly, and they should be determined by the assembly.

Edited March 2, 2023 at 05:56 AM by Gregory Carlson

[puzzling]

 Another problem with referring the adoption of special rules of order to a committee:

What vote need the motion to adopt such a rule? 

I guess a 2/3 vote, but what if there is a majority in favour but not 2/3? (5 in favour, 3 against for example) 

The committee can report they are in favour (by majority) but cannot adopt the rule (no 2/3 in favour).

 

[Atul Kapur]

The assembly is free to instruct the committee in this regard, but I'd say in the absence of instructions it would just take a mjajority vote in committee. The higher vote threshold was achieved with the assembly's vote.

 

Note that I am not advocating for anyone to do this, I am simply replying to Mr. Honemann's question and playing out the logic.