Special Committee of Everybody.

[J. J.]

This is another special rule question, though not related to my last one.  Assume that the bylaws authorize the assembly to create additional standing committees (50:9)

A.  May a special rule (as per 50:8) create a standing committee (for a specific class of business) made up of all the members of the assembly?

B.  If the answer is yes, may the special rule authorize electronic meetings of this committee, as per 9:35? 

[J. J.]

That should be a standing committee in the title.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/28/2023 at 9:57 PM, J. J. said:

This is another special rule question, though not related to my last one.  Assume that the bylaws authorize the assembly to create additional standing committees (50:9)

A.  May a special rule (as per 50:8) create a standing committee (for a specific class of business) made up of all the members of the assembly?

B.  If the answer is yes, may the special rule authorize electronic meetings of this committee, as per 9:35? 

 

On 6/29/2023 at 1:37 PM, J. J. said:

That should be a standing committee in the title.

Instead of going down this rather bizarre road, why wouldn't this group simply adopt a bylaw amendment authorizing electronic meetings?

[J. J.]

On 6/29/2023 at 2:51 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 

Instead of going down this rather bizarre road, why wouldn't this group simply adopt a bylaw amendment authorizing electronic meetings?

Well, they may want them for a specific purpose and not want to have electronic meetings generally. 

[J. J.]

Another possibility may be that the bylaws only permit their own amendment at specific times.

 

So far, I do not see a procedural problem establishing this type standing committee in special rules. 

[Rob Elsman]

Frankly, I'm having trouble with this topic. @Dan Honemann thinks the road is bizarre. I think it is absurd. So, could we have a legitimate purpose for such a motion that would be convincing enough to keep me from making a ruling from the chair that the motion is not in order on account that it is patently absurd?

[J. J.]

On 6/29/2023 at 4:38 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Frankly, I'm having trouble with this topic. @Dan Honemann thinks the road is bizarre. I think it is absurd. So, could we have a legitimate purpose for such a motion that would be convincing enough to keep me from making a ruling from the chair that the motion is not in order on account that it is patently absurd?

It would be to give all members of the assembly the ability to transact business on specific topics without having to assemble into a meeting of the society.

The assembly might have regular physical meetings one every three years, but wish to have a yearly budget adopted by the members (and potentially change the budget).  The assembly does not want to meet physically to make these changes, does not wish to have special meetings for other purposes, and does not wish to delegate this ability to the board or to a committee with just some of the members on it. 

I cannot come up some reason why it would be prohibited. 

[Rob Elsman]

On this basis and the comment by @Dan Honemann, I find no legitimate purpose for the motion, and it does strike me as absurd.

[J. J.]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:08 PM, Rob Elsman said:

On this basis and the comment by @Dan Honemann, I find no legitimate purpose for the motion, and it does strike me as absurd.

Well, the assembly would not, especially for the purposes stated.

As I have said, there is no legitimate reason for ruling it out of order that I could find.  I am open to them. 

[Rob Elsman]

See RONR (12th ed.) 39:3.

[J. J.]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:26 PM, Rob Elsman said:

See RONR (12th ed.) 39:3.

Since this rule does include a rational proposition, one that is stated, 39:3 would not apply. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/29/2023 at 5:00 PM, J. J. said:

It would be to give all members of the assembly the ability to transact business on specific topics without having to assemble into a meeting of the society.

The assembly might have regular physical meetings one every three years, but wish to have a yearly budget adopted by the members (and potentially change the budget).  The assembly does not want to meet physically to make these changes, does not wish to have special meetings for other purposes, and does not wish to delegate this ability to the board or to a committee with just some of the members on it. 

I cannot come up some reason why it would be prohibited. 

I don't think it would be prohibited, but it is nothing more than permitting the Committee of the Whole, which is already permitted.  So the language would be included for no purpose.

In either case, this committee would not be able to transact business except to decide what recommendation to report the the assembly.  Just as with any instance of Committee of the Whole, it has no power to act independently.

[J. J.]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:14 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't think it would be prohibited, but it is nothing more than permitting the Committee of the Whole, which is already permitted.  So the language would be included for no purpose.

In either case, this committee would not be able to transact business except to decide what recommendation to report the the assembly.  Just as with any instance of Committee of the Whole, it has no power to act independently.

If it would be a standing committee, it could, provided that the business did not violate the bylaws in some manner (50:8). 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:51 PM, J. J. said:

If it would be a standing committee, it could, provided that the business did not violate the bylaws in some manner (50:8). 

Well, the original question was about automatic referral of a class of business. 

If your purpose is to assert that a society may adopt a special rule of order that seems to cross the boundary into the land of the absurd, experience hath shewn that this was never seriously in doubt.

[J. J.]

On 7/2/2023 at 12:03 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, the original question was about automatic referral of a class of business. 

If your purpose is to assert that a society may adopt a special rule of order that seems to cross the boundary into the land of the absurd, experience hath shewn that this was never seriously in doubt.

There are clearly legitimate reasons to do this.

First, the committee could meet virtually, without needing bylaws to authorize electronic meetings.  Second, unlike a special meeting, the standing committee would have a very limited scope, e.g. a budget committee could only deal with the budget while a special meeting could be called for any purpose.  I see both of those things as an advantage.