Rules Proposed by Members

[Guest Cricket Morris]

If a rule change proposal for an association is brought forward by an individual member, can the rule committee change, amend, or postpone the vote on that rule without the author's permission?

[Josh Martin]

On 1/10/2024 at 4:01 PM, Guest Cricket Morris said:

If a rule change proposal for an association is brought forward by an individual member, can the rule committee change, amend, or postpone the vote on that rule without the author's permission?

No, unless the organization’s rules grant the committee such authority.

[Steven]

In the FAQ regarding ‘friendly amendments’ It states  

  “Once a motion has been stated by the chair, it is no longer the property of the mover, but of the assembly. Any amendment, “friendly” or otherwise, must be adopted by the full body, either by a vote or by unanimous consent.”

While not 100% on topic I would think the same principles applies.

 Once the proposed rule chance has been presented to the assembly it is now the property of the assembly at large and if the assembly refers it to the rules committee they should have full responsibility for it. 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2024 at 05:55 AM by Steven
Addition

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/14/2024 at 12:27 AM, Steven said:

In the FAQ regarding ‘friendly amendments’ It states  

  “Once a motion has been stated by the chair, it is no longer the property of the mover, but of the assembly. Any amendment, “friendly” or otherwise, must be adopted by the full body, either by a vote or by unanimous consent.”

While not 100% on topic I would think the same principles applies.

 

 

I think the analogy is pretty thin.  Actually making a motion and having it placed before the assembly is very different from having a committee change it or delay it.  Many societies do give such powers to a rules committee, and if they do, then the committee can do whatever its rules allow.  But @Josh Martin is right that this only occurs if such rules actually exist.

[Steven]

On 1/13/2024 at 11:52 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Actually making a motion and having it placed before the assembly is very different from having a committee change it or delay it. 

Can you help me understand your thinking here?

Per the OP if and individual proposed a rule change that would be in the form of a Main Motion… correct? 

Assuming so the matter has now been presented to the assembly as a whole and is no longer the property of the moving individual. 

If that motion was then committed to the rules committee with general instructions regarding this new rules acceptability wouldn’t we all expect that committees recommendations to either be a direct acceptance/denial or a modified version that they then recommend to the assembly at large? 

Where in this process is the original motion maker still involved? 

Edited January 14, 2024 at 06:54 AM by Steven
Spacing

[Gary Novosielski]

You have reached some different conclusions from the OP than I did.  In the situation as you describe it, the motion is offered as a main motion and then referred to a rules committee.  In that case, you would be correct that the original maker's "ownership" of the motion is of historical interest only.  However it is still the case that unless the rules committee has expanded powers, it can do nothing more than report a recommendation back to the parent body. It can't, on its own, change the motion that will be brought back before the parent body, or delay it beyond its designated reporting date.

But I was working on a different assumption.  My answer referred to a situation, which is fairly common, where rule changes, especially special rules of order or bylaws amendments of a similar nature must be submitted directly to a committee charged with reviewing all such proposals before they are brought to the floor.  In some societies, these proposals are reviewed and reported to the assembly with recommendations.  In other societies the committee has the power to substantially alter, revise, delay, or even kill the proposal before it sees the light of day.  But it still boils down to the same answer.  Committees have only such power as the rules allow them.  

[Josh Martin]

On 1/13/2024 at 11:27 PM, Steven said:

 Once the proposed rule chance has been presented to the assembly it is now the property of the assembly at large and if the assembly refers it to the rules committee they should have full responsibility for it. 

The committee does not, in fact, have "full responsibility" for the motion. The committee may recommend amendments to the motion, but the committee lacks the power to adopt such amendments itself, unless the organization's rules grant it such authority. If the committee wishes to recommend the motion, the committee would recommend the amendment and recommend that the main motion, as amended, be adopted. The assembly would first consider the amendment, then the main motion (either as amended or as originally made, depending on the disposition of the amendment).

I also concur with Mr. Novosielski that it is not clear to me the reason this motion is with the committee is because it has been referred by the assembly, but I don't think this ultimately makes a difference. I was under the impression that the motion was with the committee because the organization's rules provide that all rules amendments are automatically referred to the rules committee, but the answer is the same in either case.

A committee is subordinate to its parent assembly. When a motion is referred to a committee, the motion is still ultimately under the control of the assembly, not the committee.

On 1/14/2024 at 12:49 AM, Steven said:

If that motion was then committed to the rules committee with general instructions regarding this new rules acceptability wouldn’t we all expect that committees recommendations to either be a direct acceptance/denial or a modified version that they then recommend to the assembly at large? 

No, we we should not expect that. If the committee wishes to recommend a modified version, it would have to recommend that as an amendment. The committee does not have the authority, on its own, to amend the main motion, unless the organization's rules so provide.

For more information concerning the proper procedure when a committee recommends amendments on a motion referred to it, see RONR (12th ed.) 51:45-52.

On 1/14/2024 at 12:49 AM, Steven said:

Where in this process is the original motion maker still involved? 

I quite agree that the original motion maker is not involved anywhere in this process, and the original motion maker's desires do not enter into it. If a motion has been referred to a committee, my answer to the original question would be the same if the motion maker did agree to the changes.* Neither the motion maker nor the committee has the power to "change, amend, or postpone" the main motion. Only the assembly itself has that power. The committee may recommend that the assembly do one of these things, but may not order amendment or postponement on its own authority, unless the organization's rules so provide.

* If Mr. Novosielski and I are correct, however, that the motion is with the committee because all rules changes automatically go to the rules committee, and this amendment has not yet been pending before the assembly, the motion maker may have more flexibility in this matter, although a careful review of the organization's rules on this subject would be needed to say for sure.

Edited January 14, 2024 at 03:01 PM by Josh Martin