Committee with authority to act on matters of a certain class without specific instructions (50:8)

[Brad B.]

I'm trying to identify parameters for indentifying situations that fall within this category of standing committees that must be created in the bylaws or as a special rule of order.   Is there anything out there that expands on this, or a general rule of thumb?

[J. J.]

On 11/21/2023 at 5:34 PM, Brad B. said:

I'm trying to identify parameters for indentifying situations that fall within this category of standing committees that must be created in the bylaws or as a special rule of order.   Is there anything out there that expands on this, or a general rule of thumb?

I am not certain what you mean.  The bylaw or special rule create the situation where something is referred to a standing committee.

For example, if a bylaw or special rule said that a standing committee would "decide cases involving alleged violations of the bylaws," that committee would have the full authority to decide any claim that the bylaws were being violated.  The parameter is established in the bylaw or special rule. 

[Rob Elsman]

I am not certain I understand the words, "...identify parameters for identifying situations...". I get lost in all the identifying. What does this really mean?

[Josh Martin]

On 11/21/2023 at 4:34 PM, Brad B. said:

I'm trying to identify parameters for indentifying situations that fall within this category of standing committees that must be created in the bylaws or as a special rule of order.   Is there anything out there that expands on this, or a general rule of thumb?

There are two relevant rules on this matter. The first, and more important of the two, is in 56:44.

"The article on committees should provide for the establishment of each of the standing committees (50) that it is known will be required. A separate section devoted to each of these committees should give its name, composition, manner of selection, and duties. If this article names certain standing committees, no other standing committees can be appointed without amending the bylaws, unless a provision is included—usually in a separate section of the article as described below—permitting the establishment of such other standing committees as are deemed necessary to carry on the work of the society." RONR (12th ed.) 56:44

That is, if the bylaws specify certain standing committees, and the bylaws do not contain a provision authorizing the creation of additional standing committees, then additional standing committees can only be created by amending the bylaws. So that's very straightforward.

If the bylaws are silent concerning standing committees, or if the bylaws contain a provision authorizing the creation of additional standing committees, then we turn to 50:8.

"A standing committee must be constituted by name (a) by a specific provision of the bylaws or (b) by a resolution which is in effect a special rule of order and therefore requires for its adoption either previous notice and a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, if any of the following conditions are to apply:

• if the committee is to have standing authority to act for the society on matters of a certain class without specific instructions from the assembly;
• if all business of a certain class is to be automatically referred to the committee; or
• if some other rule of parliamentary procedure is affected by the committee's assigned function." RONR (12th ed.) 50:8

So what exactly do each of these things mean?

The first bullet relates to the committee's authority to act. As a general matter, a committee may make recommendations, or a committee may act upon matters with specific instructions from the assembly. If the organization wishes to empower a committee to take certain actions on a category of business without instructions, this would require a special rule of order or a rule in the bylaws.

The second bullet relates to referring items to the committee for consideration. As a general matter, if a motion is made in the parent assembly, the assembly certainly can refer it to the relevant committee for further study, but the committee is not required to do so. On the other hand, some organizations adopt rules providing that if a motion is made which falls within the purview of a certain standing committee, the motion is automatically referred to the committee.

The third bullet is the most broad, and relates to modifying "some other rule of parliamentary procedure." I'm somewhat less clear on what this refers to, but I imagine it might involve a committee which is empowered to set rules for debate or other such matters for the parent assembly (that is, a rules committee, as sometimes exists in legislative assemblies) or a committee which is empowered to amend, reject, or make rulings upon matters referred to it, rather than reporting such recommendations to the parent assembly (as is sometimes done in legislative assemblies, or in organizations with a large convention).

Is there a particular issue you have in mind which gives rise to this question, or are you just curious?

Edited November 22, 2023 at 01:36 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/22/2023 at 8:35 AM, Josh Martin said:

if the committee is to have standing authority to act for the society on matters of a certain class without specific instructions from the assembly;
... 

So what exactly do each of these things mean?

The first bullet relates to the committee's authority to act. As a general matter, a committee may make recommendations, or a committee may act upon matters with specific instructions from the assembly. If the organization wishes to empower a committee to take certain actions on a category of business without instructions, this would require a special rule of order or a rule in the bylaws.

How does this first point affect a rule of parliamentary procedure? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:02 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

How does this first point affect a rule of parliamentary procedure? 

Well, that last part of the first point was obiter dictum, so no need to make an issue of it.  🙂

[Josh Martin]

On 11/22/2023 at 9:02 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

How does this first point affect a rule of parliamentary procedure? 

I guess I'm not clear on the question. I think I correctly described what the rule says.

Are you asking whether a rule of this nature is properly in the nature of a rule of order?

[J. J.]

After Rob's comment, I am not sure that any on the other comments answer the OP's question. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:51 AM, Josh Martin said:

I guess I'm not clear on the question. I think I correctly described what the rule says.

Are you asking whether a rule of this nature is properly in the nature of a rule of order?

Yes. I'm asking you to explain why the book says what it says. 🙂

[Josh Martin]

On 11/22/2023 at 10:01 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Yes. I'm asking you to explain why the book says what it says. 🙂

Well. In that event, to answer your question, it does not appear that this rule is one which "relate[s] to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (12th ed.) 2:14

Granting a committee authority to take action on certain classes of business does not seem to be parliamentary in nature, except to the extent that the class of business is, itself, parliamentary in nature. (Although I think those circumstances may be covered by the third bullet.)

Indeed, suggesting that this is a special rule of order seems to conflict with certain other provisions in RONR such as, for example, what RONR has to say concerning the administrative duties of the President.

"All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it." RONR (12th ed.) 47:20, emphasis added

"Moreover, since Suspend the Rules applies only when “an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules” (25:1, emphasis added), the motion cannot be used to remove from the presiding officer (even temporarily) any administrative duties—those related to the role of an executive officer that are distinct from the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. (Cf. 47:20.)" RONR (12th ed.) 62:13, emphasis added

With this in mind, my best guess as to why the book says what it says is that it was believed by the Authorship Team at the time this rule was inserted that a resolution creating a committee which "is to have standing authority to act for the society on matters of a certain class without specific instructions from the assembly" requires the same vote as a resolution to adopt a special rule of order, notwithstanding that such a resolution is, itself, not "in effect a special rule of order," and the apparent contradiction in the text of this rule with the definition of a rule of order was overlooked.

But there are two members of the Authorship Team in this discussion, so perhaps they might have a better answer as to why the book says what it says.

Edited November 22, 2023 at 04:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Brad B.]

Thanks for the responses!   I ask because I'm trying to determine the vote requirement to amend a "standing rule" that created a committee that has an ongoing responsibility to establish standards for and and provide/arrange for most of the continuing education sessions at regular meetings for members of a professional association.   The rule provides very specific guidance on how the committe should go about doing this, but the committee appears to have the authority to fully implement.    So, to determine the vote requirement, I need to know if this standing rule is actually a special rule of order in the manner referenced in the first bullet point.   This doesn't seem like something in the nature of a special rule of order, but I don't understand situations the first bullet point is attempting to address.   

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/22/2023 at 11:28 AM, Josh Martin said:

But there are two members of the Authorship Team in this discussion, so perhaps they might have a better answer as to why the book says what it says.

The book says what it says here because the guys who wrote it in 1970 decided that it should, and they were smarter than I am.

 

On 11/22/2023 at 1:07 PM, Brad B. said:

Thanks for the responses!   I ask because I'm trying to determine the vote requirement to amend a "standing rule" that created a committee that has an ongoing responsibility to establish standards for and and provide/arrange for most of the continuing education sessions at regular meetings for members of a professional association.   The rule provides very specific guidance on how the committe should go about doing this, but the committee appears to have the authority to fully implement.    So, to determine the vote requirement, I need to know if this standing rule is actually a special rule of order in the manner referenced in the first bullet point.   This doesn't seem like something in the nature of a special rule of order, but I don't understand situations the first bullet point is attempting to address.   

If I were you I would assume that the vote required to amend this rule is (a) previous notice (10:44–51) and a two-thirds vote or (b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership, either of which will suffice.

[Rob Elsman]

This reply was previously given in error.  Take a look at RONR (12th ed.) tinted page 10, motion 17.

Edited November 22, 2023 at 06:21 PM by Rob Elsman

[Josh Martin]

On 11/22/2023 at 12:07 PM, Brad B. said:

Thanks for the responses!   I ask because I'm trying to determine the vote requirement to amend a "standing rule" that created a committee that has an ongoing responsibility to establish standards for and and provide/arrange for most of the continuing education sessions at regular meetings for members of a professional association.   The rule provides very specific guidance on how the committee should go about doing this, but the committee appears to have the authority to fully implement.    So, to determine the vote requirement, I need to know if this standing rule is actually a special rule of order in the manner referenced in the first bullet point.   This doesn't seem like something in the nature of a special rule of order, but I don't understand situations the first bullet point is attempting to address.   

This quite clearly falls under the first bullet of RONR (12th ed.) 50:8, and therefore, amending this rule will require the same vote as the vote to amend a special rule of order - a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/22/2023 at 11:28 AM, Josh Martin said:

But there are two members of the Authorship Team in this discussion, so perhaps they might have a better answer as to why the book says what it says.

Nah, that's just  crazy talk. 🤪