Consideration of an appeals process that involves a committee that will vote on matters that is not a sub committee of assembly and consists of those non-voting.

[jggorman]

Our chairperson is asking us to consider an appeals process that involves what will be a newly created appeals committee that will vote on matters. This new appeals committee is not a sub committee of our assembly and consists of some people that are either not members of our committee or non-voting members. The new appeals process additionally grants the officers the power of veto, that is to deny the appeal and prevent the full members from voting on it. Our bylaws give the officers the power to create ad-hoc committees (though states nothing about a committee or procedures external to our own). In our bylaws and procedures documents clearly state that all matters presented to ad-hoc committees must be presented to the assembly for a vote, the chairman is claiming that this new committee will not be under our assembly, but rather a combination of our committee and an external committee, so therefore does not need to follow our rules or that our rules can be changed by voting on the document. Also the claim is that it is not a violation of any rules, I assume because it is not in affect until we vote on it, at which point it will supersede Robert's Rules (to which we our bound in our bylaws).

Also note, we have a subcommittee, that deals with these matters, but the chairperson is asserting that the matters are different. The subcommittee, nor all our subcommittee, do not have appeals process because our procedures for each sub committee indicate that all matters may be voted on by the full members.

What can be done?

Edited November 5, 2023 at 05:40 PM by jggorman
clarity

[Josh Martin]

On 11/5/2023 at 10:16 AM, jggorman said:

Our chairperson is asking us to consider an appeals process that involves what will be a newly created appeals committee that will vote on matters.

Appeals of what, exactly? What are the sorts of "matters" this committee will be handling?

On 11/5/2023 at 10:16 AM, jggorman said:

This new appeals committee is not a sub committee of our assembly and consists of some people that are either not members of our committee or non-voting members. The new appeals process additionally grants the officers the power of veto, that is to deny the appeal and prevent the full members from voting on it. Our bylaws give the officers the power to create ad-hoc committees (though states nothing about a committee or procedures external to our own). In our bylaws and procedures documents clearly state that all matters presented to ad-hoc committees must be presented to the assembly for a vote, the chairman is claiming that this new committee will not be under our assembly, but rather a combination of our committee and an external committee, so therefore does not need to follow our rules or that our rules can be changed by voting on the document. Also the claim is that it is not a violation of any rules, I assume because it is not in affect until we vote on it, at which point it will supersede Robert's Rules (to which we our bound in our bylaws).

Also note, we have a subcommittee, that deals with these matters, but the chairperson is asserting that the matters are different. The subcommittee, nor all our subcommittee, do not have appeals process because our procedures for each sub committee indicate that all matters may be voted on by the full members.

What can be done?

As I understand the facts presented, creation of this committee will almost certainly require an amendment to the bylaws. The organization is, however, free to adopt such amendments to the bylaws if it wishes to do so. If the organization does not wish to do so, then it is free to reject the proposed amendments.

[jggorman]

The appeals are for courses to be added to list of approved courses list. This is some that usually is detailed in procedures. In all procedures documented, the question of adding a course to a list was allowed to proceed to the full members even if various signatories disapproved. However, two years ago the assembly agreed to procedures allowing an external committee to our assembly to approve courses as part of a few approval steps. Then that committee started denying the courses and they were not allowed to proceed to be voted on by our assembly (something that never happened before). The original motion adopted did not say it was a new procedure, nor did was there mention of what would happen if this external committee did not approve of a course being added to the list. In fact, it was conveyed that our existing procedures would be update yet they never were. Now years later, it is being claimed that the procedure is new and not in our procedures manual and no one challenged the veto power of the original ad-hoc committee. Members complained about a lack of appeals process and a number of members responded with this new procedure and new committee. This new appeals process would be a different external committee and codifies the power of veto as being in our officers hands.

I'd like to object to the question of considering the question (the procedure on appeals) on the grounds that it contains description of a committee that does not exist and if this process existed without a vote to adopt, it would violate our bylaws. Or perhaps on the grounds that the chairperson lacks the authority to create a committee that is not defined in our bylaws and is partially consisting of members who are not on our committee whose membership is defined in the parent organization's bylaws (this is where our bylaws reside, we only have our procedures).

I don't know if RONR has a rule about creating an ad-hoc committee that is not a subcommittee of a committee, that is external, and has members outside of the committee if that power is not already indicated in bylaws.

The strange part is also, it is not technically a violation if the body adopts it first. In other words, the assembly is free to adopt rules that contradict RONR even if they have a parliamentary authority statement in their bylaws, if they choose to do so.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/5/2023 at 3:32 PM, jggorman said:

The appeals are for courses to be added to list of approved courses list. This is some that usually is detailed in procedures. In all procedures documented, the question of adding a course to a list was allowed to proceed to the full members even if various signatories disapproved. However, two years ago the assembly agreed to procedures allowing an external committee to our assembly to approve courses as part of a few approval steps. Then that committee started denying the courses and they were not allowed to proceed to be voted on by our assembly (something that never happened before). The original motion adopted did not say it was a new procedure, nor did was there mention of what would happen if this external committee did not approve of a course being added to the list. In fact, it was conveyed that our existing procedures would be update yet they never were. Now years later, it is being claimed that the procedure is new and not in our procedures manual and no one challenged the veto power of the original ad-hoc committee. Members complained about a lack of appeals process and a number of members responded with this new procedure and new committee. This new appeals process would be a different external committee and codifies the power of veto as being in our officers hands.

This all sounds extremely complicated. I think it will ultimately be up to your own organization to interpret its own rules on this matter.

On 11/5/2023 at 3:32 PM, jggorman said:

I'd like to object to the question of considering the question (the procedure on appeals) on the grounds that it contains description of a committee that does not exist and if this process existed without a vote to adopt, it would violate our bylaws. Or perhaps on the grounds that the chairperson lacks the authority to create a committee that is not defined in our bylaws and is partially consisting of members who are not on our committee whose membership is defined in the parent organization's bylaws (this is where our bylaws reside, we only have our procedures).

If you believe the creation of this committee will conflict with your bylaws, then yes, you should raise a Point of Order concerning that matter.

As I have said previously, I think it is quite likely creating this committee would require amending the bylaws.

On 11/5/2023 at 3:32 PM, jggorman said:

I don't know if RONR has a rule about creating an ad-hoc committee that is not a subcommittee of a committee, that is external, and has members outside of the committee if that power is not already indicated in bylaws.

An organization can certainly create a special (ad hoc) committee which is not a subcommittee of a committee. If a committee is created as a subcommittee, then the subcommittee may only contain members of the committee, unless otherwise authorized by the parent assembly of the committee.

RONR does not have rules concerning committees which are wholly "external" to the organization itself. That is not to say such committees do not exist, but RONR does not really delve into such questions.

On 11/5/2023 at 3:32 PM, jggorman said:

The strange part is also, it is not technically a violation if the body adopts it first. In other words, the assembly is free to adopt rules that contradict RONR even if they have a parliamentary authority statement in their bylaws, if they choose to do so.

I don't see anything strange about this. The intent of RONR is to act as a comprehensive guide on parliamentary procedure so that an organization does not need to create its own rules from scratch. The assembly may, however, adopt its own rules superseding RONR in particular matters if it wishes.

"Experience has shown that some of the rules of a society should be made more difficult to change, or to suspend—that is, to set aside for a specific purpose—than others. Upon this principle, the rules which an established organization may have are commonly divided into classes—some of which are needed by every society, while others may be required only as conditions warrant. Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization." RONR (12th ed.) 2:2

[jggorman]

Thank you, that is all very helpful. I hope everyone realizes the good work everyone is doing here. It changes lives.

Edited November 6, 2023 at 03:13 PM by jggorman