Powers Granted to a Judicial Committee

[Guest Andy E]

Good morning!
Our state party's bylaws erect a judicial committee and state that this committee has a specific function, as follows:

V. JUDICIAL COMMITTEE    (From www.michiganlp.org/bylaws)

The judicial power of the Party shall be vested in a Judicial Committee composed of three Party members. All of these committee members shall be elected to a two-year term at a regular convention of the Party by the attending delegates and shall take office immediately upon the close of such convention and shall serve until the final adjournment of the next regular convention. No member of the Executive Committee may be a member of the Judicial Committee.
The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions.

There has been considerable controversy over the last sentence. Many in our party assert that our JC only has advisory powers - that any decisions are not self-executing and would at least require action of the state Executive Committee.  It is also asserted that our JC can not reverse actions taken during a convention of the body, since that body created the JC as a committee - therefore the body is the ultimate authority in all matters.  The nexus for these discussion was a decision of the JC which reversed the results of an officer vote of no-confidence, which had the effect of reconstituting an entire Executive Board, due to a finding that the convention was a "special meeting" and that the vote of no-confidence had not been properly noticed.

Should we give more weight to the bylaw that creates the JC and appears to grant broad powers, or to RONR in terms of the JC being of limited powers, due to being a committee?

I should also highlight Article XI.2 of our bylaws, which states:

Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be the parliamentary authority for all matters of procedure not specifically covered by the bylaws or convention rules of the Party.

 

Thank you for your time and attention.
Andy Evans

[Joshua Katz]

On 3/16/2024 at 8:17 AM, Guest Andy E said:

Should we give more weight to the bylaw that creates the JC and appears to grant broad powers, or to RONR in terms of the JC being of limited powers, due to being a committee?

I don't think we can say much else about this than that RONR doesn't tell you anything aout what a judicial committee does, as it's a product of your bylaws. Or about no confidence votes, which also aren't found in there. Or about hostile takeovers, for that matter. I don't think it's correct to say that RONR says it has limited powers because it's a committee. That is a very general proposition that will always fall to something more specific, and committees can be formed with or without power to act.

[Guest Andy E]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:43 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I don't think we can say much else about this than that RONR doesn't tell you anything aout what a judicial committee does, as it's a product of your bylaws. Or about no confidence votes, which also aren't found in there. Or about hostile takeovers, for that matter. I don't think it's correct to say that RONR says it has limited powers because it's a committee. That is a very general proposition that will always fall to something more specific, and committees can be formed with or without power to act.

Thank you sir.  Sounds to me like the remedy in these cases, if a body objects to a powerful JC, is to fix the by-laws.

[Joshua Katz]

Well I didn't say there's no objections to that interpretation; I don't know enough about your bylaws to say that. I said RONR doesn't provide one. But in practice, if your precedents interpret it as powerful, then yes, amending the bylaws is a good way to change it. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/16/2024 at 10:17 AM, Guest Andy E said:

It is also asserted that our JC can not reverse actions taken during a convention of the body, since that body created the JC as a committee - therefore the body is the ultimate authority in all matters.

...

Many in our party assert that our JC only has advisory powers - that any decisions are not self-executing and would at least require action of the state Executive Committee.  Should we give more weight to the bylaw that creates the JC and appears to grant broad powers, or to RONR in terms of the JC being of limited powers, due to being a committee?

There is no doubt that the bylaws take precedence over RONR.

"Except for the corporate charter in an incorporated society, the bylaws (as the single, combination-type instrument is called in this book) comprise the highest body of rules in societies as normally established today. Such an instrument supersedes all other rules of the society, except the corporate charter, if there is one. In organizations that have both a constitution and bylaws as separate documents, however, the constitution is the higher of the two bodies of rules and supersedes the bylaws." RONR (12th ed.) 2:12

Additionally, with respect to the concern that the bylaws restrict the power of the board (and even the convention), the bylaws can do that.

"The bylaws, by their nature, necessarily contain whatever limitations are placed on the powers of the assembly of a society (that is, the members attending a particular one of its meetings) with respect to the society as a whole." RONR (12th ed.) 2:13

"A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it." RONR (12th ed.) 49:5

To be clear, I'm not expressing a view at this time with respect to the degree of authority granted to the Judicial Committee. But the answer to this question will have to be found in the bylaws - RONR can't save the society from its own bylaws, since the bylaws take precedence over RONR.

And yes, certainly, if the society doesn't like the provision in its bylaws, the solution is to amend the bylaws.

Edited March 16, 2024 at 04:22 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

Guest Andy E, this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, which is something that only the membership of your society can do. However, I can provide some insight and guidance for you.

As I read your question, I think it is actually made up of two or three separate questions. The first question is whether the power to decide on violations of the bylaws is merely advisory or if the committee has the power to actually make binding or final rulings. Although most committees are only advisory, a committee can be created “with power” to execute its recommendations. RONR (12th ed.) §50:5. Otherwise, it has no authority to act independently for the society.  RONR 50:4. Whether these bylaws grant that committee that power is a matter of bylaws interpretation. Based on what we have been told, the bylaws do not expressly provide that the decisions of this committee are final or self executing. My own interpretation is that the committee likely does have the authority to actually decide those issues, but it is the interpretation of your membership that counts. The bylaws do not make it clear that the decisions or opinions of this committee are "self-executing".

That does not end the discussion however, as a second question remains, that being whether this committee has the “sole and exclusive“ authority to decide cases involving alleged violations of the bylaws or resolutions. This committee was created by and clearly seems subordinate to the membership, which would normally be the delegates assembled at a convention. There is nothing in the bylaws language creating the committee or describing its powers which indicates that the committee has been given the “sole and exclusive“ authority to decide questions of violations of the bylaws and resolutions.  
 

The ultimate authority to interpret the bylaws in a not for profit membership organization resides with the membership, unless that power is expressly granted to some other body in the bylaws. I do not see where the quoted provisions of the bylaws grant this committee the sole or exclusive authority to decide questions of violations of the bylaws and resolutions.  

In my opinion, this authority of the judicial committee to decide questions of violations of the bylaws and resolutions is, at best, co-extensive with or shared with the membership, which seems to consist of the delegates assembled at a convention. Since the membership is the superior authority, the membership would have the ultimate authority to interpret the bylaws and to overturn or modify decisions of the judicial committee with which it disagrees. For those same reasons, the judicial committee would not have the authority to overturn or modify any action taken by the membership. RONR (12th Ed.) 49:7. She also official interpretation 2006–12 on the main Robert’s Rules website. 

The following discussion from 2023 regarding the bylaws language necessary for a grant of exclusive authority seems very enlightening and applicable to this situation.  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/42815-how-to-place-matters-exclusively-under-the-control-of-board-in-bylaws/

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2024 at 08:52 PM by Richard Brown
Edited to add the link at the end of the last paragraph

[Guest Andy E]

Thank you all so much!  This has been very helpful advice.
I'm still inclined to give much weight to the phrases "judicial power" and "shall decide cases", but I suspect the membership will indeed get this resolved over the next 12 months.  Suspect the JC will be scrapped eventually, and much more care spent on the bylaws going forward.     🙂

[J. J.]

On 3/16/2024 at 11:17 AM, Guest Andy E said:

The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions.

 

That bylaw means exactly what it says, the decision of if something violated the bylaws is ultimately determined by that committee. 

There can be situations, in a committee, for example, where the chair, and upon appeal the committee, can make determination, but that would be subject to the ultimate determination of the judicial committee. 

Note that if such a clause creating a judicial committee did not exist, this ability will be granted to the assembly.  That is more of a bylaw interpretation question.

 

ETA:  I do not see any disagreement that it should be the bylaw should be given more weight, in fact all weight. when it conflicts with a provision of RONR.

Edited March 18, 2024 at 11:33 PM by J. J.