Restrictions on a committee

[J. J.]

This might not be advanced, but I still wanted to start it here.

Society X has established Standing Committees by special rule.  They have a Bird Committee.  In the rules establishing the Bird Committee, the assembly had a rule that says "only members of the Bird Committee shall be permitted to attend meetings of the committee.  No other person may attend." 

The Bird Committee wants to have a professional attend one of their meetings.  May they suspend the rules and invite her?

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:55 AM, J. J. said:

This might not be advanced, but I still wanted to start it here.

Society X has established Standing Committees by special rule.  They have a Bird Committee.  In the rules establishing the Bird Committee, the assembly had a rule that says "only members of the Bird Committee shall be permitted to attend meetings of the committee.  No other person may attend." 

The Bird Committee wants to have a professional attend one of their meetings.  May they suspend the rules and invite her?

No, a committee may not suspend any rule made specifically applicable to it by its parent body.  "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. A committee may not adopt its own rules except as authorized in the rules of the society or in instructions given to the committee by its parent assembly in a particular case."   RONR, 12th ed., 50:26

My recollection is that we had a discussion concerning this sort of question not too long ago, but I'm having trouble finding it.

[J. J.]

You may be right, but I do not find the citation compelling.  The reason is because 50:26 does not deal with suspending a rule, but adopting a permanent one.  It might be well to clarify that.

Edited March 10, 2023 at 02:38 PM by J. J.

[Atul Kapur]

In my mind, at least, it's quite evident that if you are told that you must operate according to a certain set of rules and you do not have the authority to change them yourself, then you do not have the authority to say, "Well, we'll make an exception just this one time."

Edited March 10, 2023 at 05:08 PM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

On 3/10/2023 at 12:07 PM, Atul Kapur said:

In my mind, at least, it's quite evident that if you are told that you must operate according to a certain set of rules and you do not have the authority to change them yourself, then you do not have the authority to say, "Well, we'll make an exception just this one time."

I am not certain about that.

An assembly that could adopt its own special rules may not be able to adopt a a special rule at a specific meeting, due to not have an MEM present (even with a quorum), or not having given previous notice.  It can clearly suspend the rule that only members may attend the meeting, even if, in the circumstance, the assembly could not change the rule itself.  

Also, assuming that the rule could not be suspended, could a point of be raised after the fact.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/10/2023 at 12:34 PM, J. J. said:

An assembly that could adopt its own special rules

There's the difference right there: the assembly has the authority to adopt its own rules, even if it doesn't meet the conditions to do so at that particular meeting. The committee has no such authority.

On 3/10/2023 at 12:34 PM, J. J. said:

Also, assuming that the rule could not be suspended, could a point of [order?] be raised after the fact.

If some action were to be improperly done in committee, then I believe (but am not stating as absolute fact) that a point of order could be raised at the next meeting of the parent body, reporting the alleged error so that the presiding office could rule and order corrective measures. It would be timely because it was raised at the first opportunity.

[J. J.]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:50 PM, Atul Kapur said:

There's the difference right there: the assembly has the authority to adopt its own rules, even if it doesn't meet the conditions to do so at that particular meeting. The committee has no such authority.

If some action were to be improperly done in committee, then I believe (but am not stating as absolute fact) that a point of order could be raised at the next meeting of the parent body, reporting the alleged error so that the presiding office could rule and order corrective measures. It would be timely because it was raised at the first opportunity.

I agree on the first point, but there is no reference in text.

On the second, I'm not seeing a continuing breach. 

 

[Josh Martin]

I concur with Mr. Honemann that a committee cannot properly suspend a rule imposed upon it by a parent assembly, such as the rule described here that "only members of the Bird Committee shall be permitted to attend meetings of the committee.  No other person may attend." If the committee wishes to have a professional attend one of its meetings, the proper course of action is to report this to the parent assembly and request that it amend the rule in question.

However, I concur with J.J. that if this rule is violated, I do not think a Point of Order could be raised regarding this matter after the fact. The assembly certainly could take other action regarding this matter if it wishes to do so, such as removing members of the committee.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/10/2023 at 1:55 AM, J. J. said:

The Bird Committee wants to have a professional attend one of their meetings.  May they suspend the rules and invite her?

 

On 3/11/2023 at 7:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

However, I concur with J.J. that if this rule is violated, I do not think a Point of Order could be raised regarding this matter after the fact. The assembly certainly could take other action regarding this matter if it wishes to do so, such as removing members of the committee.

The answer to the question originally asked is "no", and if the committee nevertheless decides to suspend this rule and issue the invitation, its decision is null and void. A point of order concerning this violation may be raised in the committee at any time from the moment that the decision was made to issue the invitation up until the adjournment of the meeting which the professional attends. 

"The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach—that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect—regardless of how much time has elapsed."  RONR, 12th ed., 23:6 (emphasis supplied)

[Josh Martin]

On 3/11/2023 at 7:34 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The answer to the question originally asked is "no", and if the committee nevertheless decides to suspend this rule and issue the invitation, its decision is null and void. A point of order concerning this violation may be raised in the committee at any time from the moment that the decision was made to issue the invitation up until the adjournment of the meeting which the professional attends. 

"The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach—that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect—regardless of how much time has elapsed."  RONR, 12th ed., 23:6 (emphasis supplied)

I agree with this clarification. My response assumed that the meeting where the professional attended had already occurred at the time when the Point of Order was raised.

Edited March 11, 2023 at 04:09 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/10/2023 at 10:07 PM, J. J. said:

I agree on the first point, but there is no reference in text.

As I said originally, it is evident even without a specific reference in the text.

On 3/10/2023 at 10:07 PM, J. J. said:

On the second, I'm not seeing a continuing breach. 

I agree that the breach only lasts as long as the non-member is attending the committee, which is why I was not absolute in my response. I was looking for a way for a member to report this error to the parent body, to allow it to take appropriate action, such as

On 3/11/2023 at 7:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

The assembly certainly could take other action regarding this matter if it wishes to do so, such as removing members of the committee.

 

[puzzling]

Could the committee  just decide to meet the professional birdwatcher  outside a meeting. ( so no business could be done while the birdwatcher was at the gathering)

And could the committee in principle even have a motion to resess the meeting till after the end of the discussion with the birdwatcher?

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/12/2023 at 4:08 AM, puzzling said:

Could the committee  just decide to meet the professional birdwatcher  outside a meeting. ( so no business could be done while the birdwatcher was at the gathering)

And could the committee in principle even have a motion to resess [sic] the meeting till after the end of the discussion with the birdwatcher?

As far as we know, the rule, in its entirety, reads as follows: "only members of the Bird Committee shall be permitted to attend meetings of the committee.  No other person may attend." 

If you feel that there is some doubt or question as to what, exactly, this means, RONR, 12th ed., 56:68(1) tells you that the rule should be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the rule was adopted, as far as this intent can be determined.  So in this instance, you should ask J.J.  🙂

[J. J.]

On 3/12/2023 at 9:19 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As far as we know, the rule, in its entirety, reads as follows: "only members of the Bird Committee shall be permitted to attend meetings of the committee.  No other person may attend." 

If you feel that there is some doubt or question as to what, exactly, this means, RONR, 12th ed., 56:68(1) tells you that the rule should be interpreted in accordance with the intention of the society at the time the rule was adopted, as far as this intent can be determined.  So in this instance, you should ask J.J.  🙂

I would interpret the rule to just refer to the actual meeting. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/12/2023 at 3:08 AM, puzzling said:

Could the committee  just decide to meet the professional birdwatcher  outside a meeting. ( so no business could be done while the birdwatcher was at the gathering)

And could the committee in principle even have a motion to resess the meeting till after the end of the discussion with the birdwatcher?

I am inclined to think the answer is technically yes to both of these questions, although it will ultimately be up to the society to interpret its own rules.

If it is at all possible to do so in a timely manner, I think it would be prudent for the committee to seek guidance in this matter from the parent assembly. 

[J. J.]

On 3/12/2023 at 6:40 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am inclined to think the answer is technically yes to both of these questions, although it will ultimately be up to the society to interpret its own rules.

If it is at all possible to do so in a timely manner, I think it would be prudent for the committee to seek guidance in this matter from the parent assembly. 

I'm not joking when I say this, but what if the person being invited is actually a member of the parent body? 

Further, what if a sizable number of the members of the assembly, but not members of the Bird Committee, want to attend this meeting. 

(My guess would be that the answer would still be the same.)

[Atul Kapur]

I don't believe that either of those situations changes anything.

On 3/10/2023 at 1:55 AM, J. J. said:

"only members of the Bird Committee shall be permitted to attend meetings of the committee.  No other person may attend." 

But, to steal a phrase, it's your rule - you tell us ... why you think they might change the responses.

[J. J.]

On 3/13/2023 at 2:37 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't believe that either of those situations changes anything.

But, to steal a phrase, it's your rule - you tell us ... why you think they might change the responses.

It is based on a real life situation that I saw.  It was clear that a majority of the parent assembly, which was not meeting, was cool with letting someone unauthorized into the committee meeting.

While I might ultimately agree with the answer, I think the book is unclear.  50:26 refers to the parliamentary authority and 29:5 fn. 7 refers to the rule regarding debate being suspended to permit a non member to enter into debate, which obviously implies attendance. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/12/2023 at 11:16 PM, J. J. said:

I'm not joking when I say this, but what if the person being invited is actually a member of the parent body? 

Further, what if a sizable number of the members of the assembly, but not members of the Bird Committee, want to attend this meeting. 

(My guess would be that the answer would still be the same.)

 

On 3/13/2023 at 2:55 AM, J. J. said:

It is based on a real life situation that I saw.  It was clear that a majority of the parent assembly, which was not meeting, was cool with letting someone unauthorized into the committee meeting.

While I might ultimately agree with the answer, I think the book is unclear.  50:26 refers to the parliamentary authority and 29:5 fn. 7 refers to the rule regarding debate being suspended to permit a non member to enter into debate, which obviously implies attendance. 

J.J., these additional facts that you have provided do not change the answer.  A committee may not suspend any rule (special or standing) which its parent assembly has made specifically applicable to it, and any attempt to do so will be null and void.

You consistently note that you can find nothing in the book which says exactly what I have just said.  I agree, but I also agree with Dr. Kapur when he said that: "In my mind, at least, it's quite evident that if you are told that you must operate according to a certain set of rules and you do not have the authority to change them yourself, then you do not have the authority to say, "Well, we'll make an exception just this one time."

But take a look at 23:9, which tells us that: "If the executive board of a society takes action that exceeds the board's instructions or authority, that conflicts with a decision made by the assembly of the society, or that falls under any of the categories listed in 23:6, a point of order can be raised at a board meeting at any time during the continuance of the breach. If the point of order is sustained, the action must be declared null and void."  Don't you agree that what is said here (and in the rest of 23:9) applies with equal force and effect to a committee of the society?

[J. J.]

On 3/13/2023 at 7:34 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

J.J., these additional facts that you have provided do not change the answer.  A committee may not suspend any rule (special or standing) which its parent assembly has made specifically applicable to it, and any attempt to do so will be null and void.

You consistently note that you can find nothing in the book which says exactly what I have just said.  I agree, but I also agree with Dr. Kapur when he said that: "In my mind, at least, it's quite evident that if you are told that you must operate according to a certain set of rules and you do not have the authority to change them yourself, then you do not have the authority to say, "Well, we'll make an exception just this one time."

But take a look at 23:9, which tells us that: "If the executive board of a society takes action that exceeds the board's instructions or authority, that conflicts with a decision made by the assembly of the society, or that falls under any of the categories listed in 23:6, a point of order can be raised at a board meeting at any time during the continuance of the breach. If the point of order is sustained, the action must be declared null and void."  Don't you agree that what is said here (and in the rest of 23:9) applies with equal force and effect to a committee of the society?

Not necessarily.  The board, as per 23.9, would be established in the bylaws, which would fix the membership.  25:9 fn 7 indicates that the rule could be suspended to permit a nonmember to enter into debate.  There is nothing that says the rule in the footnote does not apply.

Similarly, would a rule created by the society that "The board shall always meet in executive session" prohibit the board from inviting people into executive session as per 9:25? 

To me, at least, the text is not clear and it is a grey area. 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/13/2023 at 12:14 PM, J. J. said:

Similarly, would a rule created by the society that "The board shall always meet in executive session" prohibit the board from inviting people into executive session as per 9:25? 

No, because a requirement that the board meet in executive session does not prevent inviting other persons. It simply requires that the proceedings must be secret.

As to the rule involved in the original question, my view of it is that as a general matter, a rule which is imposed upon a subordinate assembly should generally be understood as not being suspendable, unless the rule so provides. If the organization feels differently in a particular case, then the organization is free to determine otherwise, as the organization is ultimately the judge of its own bylaws.

In any event, it would be prudent for the organization to carefully review the rule and determine whether it needs to be amended for clarity, or perhaps removed altogether. It would not surprise me if what the organization had intended with this rule was to provide that only members of the committee had a right to attend, but that the committee may invite other persons if desired, and they unfortunately wrote it rather poorly. If this is what was intended, the rule could simply be removed, since this is consistent with what RONR provides.

Edited March 13, 2023 at 05:25 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 3/13/2023 at 1:21 PM, Josh Martin said:

 

As to the rule involved in the original question, my view of it is that as a general matter, a rule which is imposed upon a subordinate assembly should generally be understood as not being suspendable, unless the rule so provides.

 

While I do not necessarily disagree, it would be helpful for the text to say that. 

[Richard Brown]

First, I agree with Dan Honemann and the rest of our colleagues that the rule prohibiting non-members from attending the committee meetings cannot be suspended by the committee.

Second, responding to @puzzling, I agree that having the committee members gather informally with the expert outside of a meeting to get his opinion on something would be perfectly permissible. There is no "meeting" as defined by RONR.  I question whether calling a recess during a committee meeting and then having an informal conversation with the expert would be permissible, but I can see how some might disagree.  Is it still a "meeting" if the meeting is in recess?  According to 8:2(3) (RONR 12th ed.), a recess "is a short intermission or break within a meeting that does not end the meeting or destroy is its continuity as a single gathering . . . ."   So, based ib that provision, it seems that the committee is still in a meeting.  Perhaps an "adjournment" for fifteen or thirty minutes rather than a recess would be a solution.  Thoughts?  I think the same thing could be accomplished by adjourning to an adjourned meeting to take place in thirty minutes (or at the call of the chair).  RONR is clear that an adjourned meeting, while a continuation of the same session, is indeed a separate meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/13/2023 at 5:28 PM, Richard Brown said:

First, I agree with Dan Honemann and the rest of our colleagues that the rule prohibiting non-members from attending the committee meetings cannot be suspended by the committee.

This deals with the important point.

 

On 3/13/2023 at 5:28 PM, Richard Brown said:

Second, responding to @puzzling, I agree that having the committee members gather informally with the expert outside of a meeting to get his opinion on something would be perfectly permissible. There is no "meeting" as defined by RONR.  I question whether calling a recess during a committee meeting and then having an informal conversation with the expert would be permissible, but I can see how some might disagree.  Is it still a "meeting" if the meeting is in recess?  According to 8:2(3) (RONR 12th ed.), a recess "is a short intermission or break within a meeting that does not end the meeting or destroy is its continuity as a single gathering . . . ."   So, based ib that provision, it seems that the committee is still in a meeting.  Perhaps an "adjournment" for fifteen or thirty minutes rather than a recess would be a solution.  Thoughts?  I think the same thing could be accomplished by adjourning to an adjourned meeting to take place in thirty minutes (or at the call of the chair).  RONR is clear that an adjourned meeting, while a continuation of the same session, is indeed a separate meeting.

This is an exercise in futility.

[Gary Novosielski]

"29:5 fn. 7 refers to the rule regarding [rules] being suspended to permit a non member to enter into debate, which obviously implies attendance. "  --J.J.

It does, but not in the sense of tacitly authorizing attendance, especially if attendance is explicitly prohibited.

The question of whether someone can speak in debate is moot if the person in question cannot attend.

Edited March 14, 2023 at 04:02 PM by Gary Novosielski
Fix attribution.