Restrictions on a committee

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I feel attacked.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/14/2023 at 6:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I feel attacked.

Because?

[J. J.]

On 3/13/2023 at 8:46 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

"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.

The question is how would be prohibited?

The bylaws create a board and list the members of the board.   Is that sufficient to say that the board could not use 29:5 fn. 7 to let a nonmember enter into debate?  What if, instead of a board, it is a committee with established membership? 

I don't have solid answers, and not seeing too much in text for guidance. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/15/2023 at 9:27 AM, J. J. said:

The question is how would be prohibited?

The bylaws create a board and list the members of the board.   Is that sufficient to say that the board could not use 29:5 fn. 7 to let a nonmember enter into debate?  What if, instead of a board, it is a committee with established membership? 

I don't have solid answers, and not seeing too much in text for guidance. 

First of all, how about supplying a correct citation.  29:5 has nothing to do with this.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 3/15/2023 at 4:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Because?

It's an internet joke that I thought JJ would get because his question seems related to a real world situation that happened in a committee I am on.

[J. J.]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:29 AM, Dan Honemann said:

First of all, how about supplying a correct citation.  29:5 has nothing to do with this.

I do not agree with you.  That is one of the key points.  When can a subordinate body suspend the rules?  I don't have a solid answer.    I do agree than once the non member has left, any potential breach of the rules is no longer continuing. 

I was observing the meeting when Ms. Harlos raised a similar question, which I have heavily fictionalized.  In my example, which is not what happened, I was thinking that the "professional" might be a parliamentarian or an attorney, there to advise the Bird Committee  or the chair. 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 at 03:56 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/15/2023 at 11:52 AM, J. J. said:

I do not agree with you.  That is one of the key points.  When can a subordinate body suspend the rules?  I don't have a solid answer.    I do agree than once the non member has left, any potential breach of the rules is no longer continuing. 

I was observing the meeting when Ms. Harlos raised a similar question, which I have heavily fictionalized.  In my example, which is not what happened, I was thinking that the "professional" might be a parliamentarian or an attorney, there to advise the Bird Committee  or the chair. 

 

Please take another look at 29:5.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/15/2023 at 10:52 AM, J. J. said:

I do not agree with you.  That is one of the key points.  When can a subordinate body suspend the rules?  I don't have a solid answer.

I continue to maintain that the most reasonable interpretation is that, as a general matter, a subordinate body cannot suspend rules imposed upon it by a superior body, unless the rule so provides. The exception to this, I think, is rules in the parliamentary authority, which I believe generally can be suspended unless some rule in the parliamentary authority suggests otherwise (for example, limiting debate in committees).

For committees, the text provides:

"Instructions to the committee can also be included in the motion to Commit, whether the committee is to be a standing or a special one, or a committee of the whole. These instructions, which are binding on the committee, may involve such matters as when the committee is to meet, how it is to consider the question, whether it is to employ an expert consultant, and when it is to report." RONR (12th ed.) 13:8

To me, it is clear that "binding on the committee" means that such instructions may not be suspended by the committee.

Of course, it may well be that this "general matter" answer will not be applicable in a particular situation. As in any case, determining the meaning of an ambiguous rule in the organization's rules is ultimately a matter for the society to decide for itself, and will require a careful review of the rules on this matter and, to the extent this can be determined, the intent of the drafters in adopting the rule. In the long run, it would be preferable to amend the rule for clarity.

As to the citation you raised, I believe you transposed the numbers, and that you meant to cite 25:9n7, which relates to suspending the rules to permit a nonmember to speak in debate. 29:5 relates to the procedure for retaking a vote when a Division of the Assembly has been demanded.

Edited March 15, 2023 at 04:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/14/2023 at 6:05 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I feel attacked.

Howzat?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/15/2023 at 9:27 AM, J. J. said:

The question is how would be prohibited?

The bylaws create a board and list the members of the board.   Is that sufficient to say that the board could not use 29:5 fn. 7 to let a nonmember enter into debate?  What if, instead of a board, it is a committee with established membership? 

I don't have solid answers, and not seeing too much in text for guidance. 

But in this scenario the committee was instructed that it may not allow guests at its meetings, no?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 3/15/2023 at 2:45 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Howzat?

It's an internet joke that I thought JJ would get because his question seems related to a real world situation that happened in a committee I am on.

[J. J.]

On 3/15/2023 at 12:26 PM, Josh Martin said:

I continue to maintain that the most reasonable interpretation is that, as a general matter, a subordinate body cannot suspend rules imposed upon it by a superior body, unless the rule so provides. The exception to this, I think, is rules in the parliamentary authority, which I believe generally can be suspended unless some rule in the parliamentary authority suggests otherwise (for example, limiting debate in committees).

 

What I am referring to is 29:5 fn. 7 being relevant. 

Actually, your distinction may explain it.  A suspendable rule in the parliamentary authority may be suspendable, but a rule created by the parent body may not. 

[J. J.]

On 3/15/2023 at 4:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But in this scenario the committee was instructed that it may not allow guests at its meetings, no?

A rule was created, though  not a specific instruction. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/15/2023 at 6:23 PM, J. J. said:

A rule was created, though  not a specific instruction. 

Isn't a rule created for a committee, in effect, an instruction to the committee?

[J. J.]

On 3/16/2023 at 10:48 AM, Josh Martin said:

Isn't a rule created for a committee, in effect, an instruction to the committee?

Is the rule in the parliamentary authority an instruction to, or limitation on, the committee?  That is where I am seeing a problem. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/16/2023 at 3:05 PM, J. J. said:

Is the rule in the parliamentary authority an instruction to, or limitation on, the committee?  That is where I am seeing a problem. 

No, not when the rule in the parliamentary authority is one which that authority says is suspensible, and is not one made specifically applicable to the committee.