Expiration of a Term

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:23 AM, Dan Honemann said:

There is no need to suspend the rules.

I agree, I brought it up initially as a possible solution if Mr. Elsman's interpretation were correct. However, I now agree that if he were correct, I would have to agree that the rule could not be suspended. But since I do not believe he is correct, I agree that suspension is not necessary.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:05 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It would be a sorry day for parliamentary law were one rule properly used to circumvent another rule.

Then it must have been a sad day indeed when Suspend the Rules was invented.  Since RONR goes somewhat out of its way to point out that a motion can survive past adjournments and quarterly intervals by using Commit, I think this shows more than a tacit assumption that someone out there will use it for that purpose.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:01 AM, pwilson said:

Perhaps I can rephrase using this shorthand: 

        (a) A quarterly time interval having elapsed

        (b) The term of all or a specified portion of the membership having expired

Do (a) and (b) always have the same effect on whether business can be carried over, etc.?

The passages referenced in the first paragraph of my original post seem to indicate yes, whereas those referenced in the second paragraph seem to indicate no.

 

On 5/9/2024 at 11:11 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Outside committees, the answer is "yes".  See RONR (12th ed.) 21:7(c).  In committees, however, motions do carry over.

It seems you are saying that there is indeed no difference between the two situations. 

I agree. And I agree that the book could be more explicitly consistent on this point.

[laser158689]

Since this conversation is roaming around a bit...

What is the logic for things surviving in committees that would normally fall to the ground?

If the term of all members expires annually, then the members of the committee itself will all be new, too!

[pwilson]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:39 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

It seems you are saying that there is indeed no difference between the two situations. 

I agree. And I agree that the book could be more explicitly consistent on this point.

Three passages new to the 12th edition got me thinking that situations (a) and (b) might have the same effect:

(1) The new footnote in the 12th edition’s discussion of Take from the Table (34:3n)

(2) The revised section on the suspending effect of making a motion to Reconsider 37:11(c)

(3) The new material under approval of the minutes (48:12)

In the first two cases, the 12th edition includes situation (b), whereas the 11th edition mentions only situation (a). I also noticed that both 11th and 12th editions treat  situations (a) and (b) as having the same effect in their discussions of regular meetings ([12th ed.] 9:8–9) and Adjourn (21:7(c)).

So the trend seems to be to treat situations (a) and (b) as having the same effect.

What puzzled me and led me to believe that (a) and (b) might not always have the same effect is that several passages in the 12th edition still mention only situation (a):

(1) Motions that bring a question again before the assembly (6:26(1))

(2) Previous notice (10:44)

(3) Postpone to a Certain Time (14:6)

(4) Lay on the Table (17:8, 17:16, 41:15)

(5) Reconsider (37:11(d), 37:15, 37:47(5))

(6) Main motions that go over to another session (38:8)

(7) Unfinished business (41:21)

(8) Orders of the day (41:40)

(9) Providing for the completion of an election (46:44)

Thank you for clarifying that situations (a) and (b) do indeed always have the same effect.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:10 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Perhaps I can help my line of argumentation move along if I say it this way:  A motion, Commit, is misused when the intent is to effect a postponement to a time too far.  See RONR Off. Interp. 2006-8.

If that were the case, then the rule would be that using Commit for this purpose was not in order.  But RONR explicitly says it works.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/9/2024 at 3:41 PM, laser158689 said:

Since this conversation is roaming around a bit...

What is the logic for things surviving in committees that would normally fall to the ground?

If the term of all members expires annually, then the members of the committee itself will all be new, too!

Well, the rule seems clear that it is what it is.

As to the logic behind it, I imagine this may have to do with the distinction between the fact that the committee is handling matters referred to it by a parent assembly, rather than those initiated by the committee.

"Since members of standing committees in ordinary societies are appointed for a term corresponding to that of the officers, such a committee is generally required to report at least once a year, usually at the annual meeting, on its activities and everything referred to it during the year. When a standing committee submits such a report at the conclusion of its members' term, the committee is not discharged from further consideration of referred matters on which it reports partially at that time, unless the assembly so votes (36); thus such matters normally go over to the new committee. The members of the old committee continue their duties until their successors are chosen.

A special committee—since it is appointed for a specific purpose—continues to exist until the duty assigned to it is accomplished, unless discharged sooner (see 36); and it ceases to exist as soon as the assembly receives its final report. The fact that an annual meeting intervenes does not discharge a special committee. But in a body which ceases to exist or in which the terms of some or all of its members expire at a definite time, like a convention of delegates, a city council, or a board of directors, a special committee expires with the body that appointed it, unless it is appointed expressly to report at a later time. If it does not report, its life expires with that of the body to which it was to report." RONR (12th ed.) 50:29-30, emphasis added

Edited May 10, 2024 at 10:34 PM by Josh Martin