Suspending an adopted special rule.

[J. J.]

Presumably it would be in order for a special rule to limit the size of a committee, i.e. "The chair shall appoint all members of special committees.  No special committee shall have more than 7 members."

May the assembly suspend this rule to:

A.  Appoint the committee members directly?

B.  Name more than 7 members to the special committee? 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/12/2023 at 10:32 AM, J. J. said:

Presumably it would be in order for a special rule to limit the size of a committee, i.e. "The chair shall appoint all members of special committees.  No special committee shall have more than 7 members."

Assuming this rule does not conflict with a rule in the bylaws, I see no reason why not.

On 12/12/2023 at 10:32 AM, J. J. said:

May the assembly suspend this rule to:

A.  Appoint the committee members directly?

B.  Name more than 7 members to the special committee? 

I think the answer to B is certainly "no." The committee, and its members, will continue to exist beyond the meeting in which it is appointed, and therefore, a committee with more than seven members will continue to conflict with this rule.

I do think that the answer to "A" is "yes". This rule refers specifically to the chair, not the President, and it therefore certainly relates to the parliamentary duties of the chair. Since the assembly may suspend the rules to remove the chair entirely, it seems to me the assembly may also suspend the rules to remove a portion of the chair's authority. Further, unlike the number of members on the committee, the appointment of the committee occurs wholly within the meeting at which the committee is appointed.

Edited December 12, 2023 at 08:51 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

On 12/12/2023 at 3:51 PM, Josh Martin said:

Assuming this rule does not conflict with a rule in the bylaws, I see no reason why not.

I think the answer to B is certainly "no." The committee, and its members, will continue to exist beyond the meeting in which it is appointed, and therefore, a committee with more than seven members will continue to conflict with this rule.

I do think that the answer to "A" is "yes". This rule refers specifically to the chair, not the President, and it therefore certainly relates to the parliamentary duties of the chair. Since the assembly may suspend the rules to remove the chair entirely, it seems to me the assembly may also suspend the rules to remove a portion of the chair's authority. Further, unlike the number of members on the committee, the appointment of the committee occurs wholly within the meeting at which the committee is appointed.

In your answer, if the title of the presiding officer was the "chair" would it make a difference?

Conversely, if the title of the officer was President and the rule said, "The president shall appoint all members of special committees.  No special committee shall have more than 7 members," would your answer change? 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/12/2023 at 4:54 PM, J. J. said:

In your answer, if the title of the presiding officer was the "chair" would it make a difference?

Then I would suggest the rule could potentially use some clarification to clarify whether it refers to the person who is currently serving as presiding officer or to the permanent office of Chair. To the extent it refers to the presiding officer, my answer remains the same as above. To the extent it refers to the permanent office of Chair, see below.

On 12/12/2023 at 4:54 PM, J. J. said:

Conversely, if the title of the officer was President and the rule said, "The president shall appoint all members of special committees.  No special committee shall have more than 7 members," would your answer change? 

This is a more difficult question. On the one hand, RONR seems to suggest that, at least in the context of such a rule in the bylaws, such a rule cannot be suspended, unless the rule so provides.

"When the bylaws provide that the president shall appoint all committees, this power does not transfer to the chair if someone else presides. A clause in the bylaws assigning to the president the duty of appointing all committees should therefore contain appropriate provision for its own suspension if necessary (for example, if there is occasion to appoint a special committee during a meeting from which the president is absent). In addition, a clause conferring on the president such power of appointment should exclude the nominating committee, and it may be advisable for such a clause also to exclude all disciplinary committees." RONR (12th ed.) 50:13

But in this case, the rule is found in a special rule of order. Since the rule specifically refers to the bylaws, it would seem reasonable to argue that this is not applicable to similar rules found in a special rule of order or standing rule.

In the case of such a rule in the bylaws, this appears to be viewed by RONR as an administrative duty of the President, not as a parliamentary duty associated with the chair.

But if such a rule is adopted as a special rule of order, it cannot be an administrative duty, or it would not be a special rule of order.

So I am inclined to think that if such a rule is adopted as a special rule of order, rather than as a rule in the bylaws, the rule must properly be understood as a parliamentary duty of the chair and not an administrative duty of the President and, as such, the power can be exercised only during meetings, and may be suspended by the assembly in a particular instance by a 2/3 vote.

So while it took a longer walk to get there, yes, my view still remains the same as above.

Edited December 13, 2023 at 02:18 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

This is where I am at:

1.  This rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and effectively places a limitation on the motion to commit.  Because RONR provides that the chair must name appointments within a meeting, even when he has sole authority to appoint, (50:13 d [last paragraph]) this rule deals with the transaction of business within a meeting.  Likewise, the number of members of a committee, must be done within a meeting (13:15), this rule deals with the transaction of business within a meeting.  As such both rules could be suspended.

OR

2.  Because the committee will exist beyond the end of the session, the rule cannot be suspended to appoint more than 7 members.  Likewise because the appointments to this committee will exist beyond the end of the session, the rule cannot be suspended to permit someone other than the chair to appoint.

In other words, I half agree with @Josh Martin, but I am unsure which half.  I do think the logic applied to one rule will apply to the other.  

[Rob Elsman]

It's your rule; you tell us. 🙂

[J. J.]

On 12/13/2023 at 11:28 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It's your rule; you tell us. 🙂

I just did. 

Actually, if I were chairing, I may submit it to the assembly, but if the assembly made the determination with one rule, I would rule the same way on the other.  If they determined that the 7 member rule could not be suspended because the committee exists outside of the meeting, for example, I would rule that, for the same reason, only the chair can appoint the  members of the committee,  and vice versa. 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/14/2023 at 8:43 AM, J. J. said:

I just did. 

Actually, if I were chairing, I may submit it to the assembly, but if the assembly made the determination with one rule, I would rule the same way on the other.  If they determined that the 7 member rule could not be suspended because the committee exists outside of the meeting, for example, I would rule that, for the same reason, only the chair can appoint the  members of the committee,  and vice versa. 

To the extent it is believed that there must be a ruling the same way one way or the other, I would prefer the ruling that neither rule can be suspended.

[J. J.]

On 12/14/2023 at 10:30 AM, Josh Martin said:

To the extent it is believed that there must be a ruling the same way one way or the other, I would prefer the ruling that neither rule can be suspended.

It would certainly be safer that way.