Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Official Interpretation 2006-12


Robert B Fish

Recommended Posts

I'm checking for some more opinions. In an organization, the Pool Committee has the right to establish policies and procedures related to the use of the pool. At a membership meeting, a motion was made to rescind a policy of the Pool Committee related to readmitting certian youth to the pool. The motion was postponed indefinitely. The membership of the pool committee has now changed somewhat and a member wishes to introduce a motion for the Pool committee to rescind its policy.

Does OI 2006-12 forbid the Pool Committee from now rescinding that policy?

Could they modify it and, if so, to what extent?

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm checking for some more opinions. In an organization, the Pool Committee has the right to establish policies and procedures related to the use of the pool. At a membership meeting, a motion was made to rescind a policy of the Pool Committee related to readmitting certian youth to the pool. The motion was postponed indefinitely. The membership of the pool committee has now changed somewhat and a member wishes to introduce a motion for the Pool committee to rescind its policy.

Does OI 2006-12 forbid the Pool Committee from now rescinding that policy?

Could they modify it and, if so, to what extent?

-Bob

As far as I can tell, the authors did not intend Official Interpretation 2006-12 to apply to a standing committee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can tell, the authors did not intend Official Interpretation 2006-12 to apply to a standing committee.

A key statement (aside from 'No.') in OI 2006-12 is "Although the membership can reverse its own decisions and decisions made by its board, the board cannot reverse decisions made by the membership." and this is drawn from p466.

It's true that OI 2006-12 does not SAY standing committee but I'm not sure I see the difference. How is having a committee do it vs. having the executive board do it is all that different? Both have authority to act between meetings and both are elected or appointed sub-bodies fo the assembly.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A key statement (aside from 'No.') in OI 2006-12 is "Although the membership can reverse its own decisions and decisions made by its board, the board cannot reverse decisions made by the membership." and this is drawn from p466.

It's true that OI 2006-12 does not SAY standing committee but I'm not sure I see the difference. How is having a committee do it vs. having the executive board do it is all that different? Both have authority to act between meetings and both are elected or appointed sub-bodies fo the assembly.

-Bob

A standing committee is not a board, and a board is not a standing committee. rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the general membership never acted on the motion to rescind the committee's policy, I don't see why the committee's hands would be tied.

OI 2006-12 says that the same result of defeating the motion to rescind is reached if the motion is postponed indefinitely.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that makes no sense to me though I'm sure I'm missing some crucial nuance.

OI 2006-12 says, "...the membership can reverse its own decisions and decisions made by its board, the board cannot reverse decisions made by the membership." and says this applies to actions the membership decided to NOT take, citing the example of endorsing a candidate for office. I'm wondering why, if the board CANNOT take that action, why could the committee do so?

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, to be sure I understand, here's a slightly different post.

In an organization, the Political Action Committee has the right to endorse candidates. At our annual membership meeting, a motion was made "That the Society will support the candidacy of James Thornton for election to the office of U. S. Senator." This motion was rejected. At the following meeting of the Political Action committee, will it be in order for the committee to consider a motion which is the same as (or presents substantially the same question as) this motion which was rejected by the membership?

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, to be sure I understand, here's a slightly different post.

In an organization, the Political Action Committee has the right to endorse candidates. At our annual membership meeting, a motion was made "That the Society will support the candidacy of James Thornton for election to the office of U. S. Senator." This motion was rejected. At the following meeting of the Political Action committee, will it be in order for the committee to consider a motion which is the same as (or presents substantially the same question as) this motion which was rejected by the membership?

-Bob

The correct answer depends on exactly what power was given to the committee in the bylaws. It may be that the motion, "That...", is an improper main motion, RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 20-25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The correct answer depends on exactly what power was given to the committee in the bylaws. It may be that the motion, "That...", is an improper main motion, RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 20-25.

Good point, Rob. However, neither OI 2006-12 nor the post says that the subordinate group has EXCLUSIVE power over the subject area, such as the Board of most stock corporations or the board of some HOA's. Therefore, unless otherwise states in the bylaws, there would be no reason that the motion at the membership meeting is improper.

-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point, Rob. However, neither OI 2006-12 nor the post says that the subordinate group has EXCLUSIVE power over the subject area, such as the Board of most stock corporations or the board of some HOA's. Therefore, unless otherwise states in the bylaws, there would be no reason that the motion at the membership meeting is improper.

-Bob

That's up to you all to determine. I don't know anything about the bylaws or the organization, so I couldn't be expected to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OI 2006-12 says, "...the membership can reverse its own decisions and decisions made by its board, the board cannot reverse decisions made by the membership." and says this applies to actions the membership decided to NOT take, citing the example of endorsing a candidate for office. I'm wondering why, if the board CANNOT take that action, why could the committee do so?

-Bob

Bob, all this hinges on why OI 2006-12 speaks only about boards, and not subordinate bodies generally, which would include committees. (It would be nice if the Authorship Team told us, and maybe amended OI 2006-12 to also tell the rest of the breathlessly anticipating world.) One view, which in my perilously oblivious innocence I buy right now, is that the question came up in relation to boards, so that's why 2006-12 was written as it was; and the idea that the application of OI 2006-12 to decision-making committees -- which, I guess, are rare -- simply didn't come up, and hasn't until you (or your client organization) brought it up now. The implication then would be that of course the OI restriction applies to committees as well as boards, especially given the more "subordinate ... or ... accountable" (RONR 10th ed., p. 9 -- whoopee, a citation! ) nature of committees.

The other view that I can think of is that there is something about that nature of committees, some crucial nuance that escapes me at the moment, that wonderfully excepts committees from the effects of OI 2006-12 that so intransigently, inexorably tie the hands of subordinate boards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's up to you all to determine. I don't know anything about the bylaws or the organization, so I couldn't be expected to know.

Oh, and Rob. That "you all" is misplaced. I have little doubt that Bob Fish was asked by the organization for advice; that's why he began by asking for "some more opinions." It is not, then, for Bob to determine: he's conferring with the experienced parliamentarians here (and maybe me) so as to better advise the organization that's consulting him. So when he says, "Therefore, unless otherwise states in the bylaws," he knows he's giving us whatever we need [typo notwithstanding] to give him those opinions, sufficiently informed. He's saying that you can forget about the bylaws, that easy dodge, and just look at the conditions he asked about, as he asked.

(And Mr. Mountcastle's bafflement about the inclusion of Postpone Indefinitely in the effects of OY 2006-12 -- Oh my, four years ago??!? -- reflects that of many of us on this forum back when it first came up. If memory serves, the opinion of the minority here (which wound up winning somehow, and then writing OY 2006-12 to codify and rub our noses in it) was that the membership assembly's declining to take a position on a question is a firm and forthright evasion, which categorically precludes the subordinate board from then committing the membership on the issue.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, if the membership rejects a motion to rescind one of its policies, it has decided that the policy should not be rescinded. As a consequence, its subordinate board or committee cannot then go ahead and rescind the policy anyway (even although it could otherwise have done so because it was a policy originally adopted by the board or committee and not by the membership).

In this instance, the question is complicated to some extent by the fact that the motion to rescind the policy was postponed indefinitely (instead of being rejected outright), which makes one curious as to what arguments (if any) were offered, in support of indefinite postponement, as to why the assembly felt that the organization should decline to take a position on the question of whether or not the policy should be rescinded (which seems strange indeed). It may be that it was argued that this decision should be left to the committee to decide, in which event the proper motion to make would have been a motion to refer the question to the committee, and not indefinite postponement, but we here are in no position to figure that out.

In any event, if the committee in this instance now wishes to have the policy rescinded, I think it would be wise to recommend to the membership that the membership do so, in view of the membership’s previous (albeit strange) decision that the organization should decline to take any position on the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...