Committee membership

[Guest Andy]

Our Standing Rules say "Membership in standing committees should contain at least five and at most seven voting members of the Bigger Group; membership shall include one x, representatives from more than one area of the Bigger Group, at most one non-voting ex officio member".

We have discovered that a person elected to a committee is not a member of the Bigger Group.

Our parliamentarian says "the language only stipulates a minimum number of voting members [of the Bigger Group], and does not exclude the presence of others on the Standing Committees. ... as long as the minimal requirement in the standing rules was met, others who were not voting members of the Bigger Group could serve."

This seems somehow wrong to me, but I can't find anything in RONR to dispute it. (As chair of this committee, I responded that the person can "serve" but is not a "member".)

[George Mervosh]

Without attempting to interpret your rule, which is strictly prohibited here, RONR has no rule prohibiting non-members of the Society from serving on one of the society's committees.

[hmtcastle]

Our Standing Rules say "Membership in standing committees should contain at least five and at most seven voting members of the Bigger Group; membership shall include one x, representatives from more than one area of the Bigger Group, at most one non-voting ex officio member".

We have discovered that a person elected to a committee is not a member of the Bigger Group.

Our parliamentarian says "the language only stipulates a minimum number of voting members [of the Bigger Group], and does not exclude the presence of others on the Standing Committees. ... as long as the minimal requirement in the standing rules was met, others who were not voting members of the Bigger Group could serve."

This seems somehow wrong to me, but I can't find anything in RONR to dispute it. (As chair of this committee, I responded that the person can "serve" but is not a "member".)

Firstly, a rule with the word "should" is a toothless rule.

Secondly, your apparent desire not to disclose the specifics of your bylaws (x? Bigger Group?) makes your question hard to understand.

Finally, you won't find anything in RONR to tell you what your bylaws mean.

[Trina]

Our Standing Rules say "Membership in standing committees should contain at least five and at most seven voting members of the Bigger Group; membership shall include one x, representatives from more than one area of the Bigger Group, at most one non-voting ex officio member".

We have discovered that a person elected to a committee is not a member of the Bigger Group.

Our parliamentarian says "the language only stipulates a minimum number of voting members [of the Bigger Group], and does not exclude the presence of others on the Standing Committees. ... as long as the minimal requirement in the standing rules was met, others who were not voting members of the Bigger Group could serve."

This seems somehow wrong to me, but I can't find anything in RONR to dispute it. (As chair of this committee, I responded that the person can "serve" but is not a "member".)

As far as RONR is concerned, anyone (member of the organization or not) can be appointed to a committee, and if so appointed would be a full member of the committee. It seems to me the quoted language from your standing rule is ambiguous, as to whether the committee can have additional members beyond the 5-7 Bigger Group people specified. It is up to your organization to interpret such ambiguity. RONR pp. 570-573 (principles of bylaws interpretation) may provide some help. Admittedly, you are speaking of a standing rule rather than a bylaw, but I'm assuming the approach to interpretation would be similar.

If this assumption is wrong, other posters will probably correct it fairly expeditiously.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks. I only used Bigger Group in order not to use identifiable names -- didn't mean to cause confusion.

I understand what you say. In reading some other posts here, though, I ran across this response and wonder why it doesn't apply to committee membership.

"In general, when interpreting language that enumerates some things but not others, it is presumed that the things not mentioned were intentionally not mentioned. So if your bylaws restrict some rights, but do not mention others, the presumption is that they did not intend to restrict the others."

There is the related question of a Nominating committee mistakenly nominating a person but not wanting to acknowledge the mistake after the election. I thought these mistakes were supposed to be brought up at the first available opportunity.

[Gary c Tesser]

Thanks. I only used Bigger Group in order not to use identifiable names -- didn't mean to cause confusion.

I understand what you say. In reading some other posts here, though, I ran across this response and wonder why it doesn't apply to committee membership.

"In general, when interpreting language that enumerates some things but not others, it is presumed that the things not mentioned were intentionally not mentioned. So if your bylaws restrict some rights, but do not mention others, the presumption is that they did not intend to restrict the others."

There is the related question of a Nominating committee mistakenly nominating a person but not wanting to acknowledge the mistake after the election. I thought these mistakes were supposed to be brought up at the first available opportunity.

Well then, Guest ... or Andy ... was, at least, your original question, about -- I think -- committee membership answered, satisfactorily?

... And is this other question about nominations related? If so, please explain how; if not, please re-post it as a new topic.

[Guest Andy]

"Well then, Guest ... or Andy ... was, at least, your original question, about -- I think -- committee membership answered, satisfactorily?"

No, I don't think so. I still wonder about these apparently conflicting applications:

From Trina: "It seems to me the quoted language from your standing rule is ambiguous, as to whether the committee can have additional members beyond the 5-7 Bigger Group people specified."

And from a previous thread on this forum: "In general, when interpreting language that enumerates some things but not others, it is presumed that the things not mentioned were intentionally not mentioned."

[Rob Elsman]

"Well then, Guest ... or Andy ... was, at least, your original question, about -- I think -- committee membership answered, satisfactorily?"

No, I don't think so. I still wonder about these apparently conflicting applications:

From Trina: "It seems to me the quoted language from your standing rule is ambiguous, as to whether the committee can have additional members beyond the 5-7 Bigger Group people specified."

And from a previous thread on this forum: "In general, when interpreting language that enumerates some things but not others, it is presumed that the things not mentioned were intentionally not mentioned."

The post was written so confusingly that I doubt you ever will get a straight answer. I don't know what the original post means, either, but I would venture--without knowing whether or how it might apply--that a bylaw that specifies that there are certain members should be understood to mean that there are no others.

[Guest Nancy N.]

The statement about interpreting, quoted (variously) from another post, is a good paraphrase of one of the principles of interpretation. That's what Rob adapted, and it doesn't matter that he said in passing we were thinking about a possibly applicable bylaw, when Andy (or Guest, perhaps Andy's nickname) began this thread by calling it one of the Standing Rules. (Hmm, would a rule that determines the population of a committee be a standing rule? Mebbe so!) Rob has his mind on higher matters.

Clearly, that principle applies to unambiguous statements. If the rule (standing? Maybe so!) had said that the committee consists of "at least five and at most seven voting members of the Bigger Group," period, then there might be some kind of ambiguity, but we could be confident that the rule limits the committee's membership to those Big Group Members. But as quoted, it is not so clear. No, not. Even if Andy had filled in "one x" to say what, or who, "x" is. Hence the ambiguity that Trina brought up, and which Rob squirmed and avoided mentioning.

As I see it, the challenge is that one of the committee members is not a member of the Bigger Group. As I read this Standing Rule, that person is not required to be a member of the Bigger Group, because he will qualify for membership in the committee if he is "one x, [or a] representatives from more than one area of the Bigger Group, [or] at most one non-voting ex officio member".

Any more speculation might resemble trying to interpret Andy's group's (Smaller Group?) rule, which I'm obviously not gonna.

[Guest Andy]

The statement about interpreting, quoted (variously) from another post, is a good paraphrase of one of the principles of interpretation. That's what Rob adapted, and it doesn't matter that he said in passing we were thinking about a possibly applicable bylaw, when Andy (or Guest, perhaps Andy's nickname) began this thread by calling it one of the Standing Rules. (Hmm, would a rule that determines the population of a committee be a standing rule? Mebbe so!) Rob has his mind on higher matters.

Clearly, that principle applies to unambiguous statements. If the rule (standing? Maybe so!) had said that the committee consists of "at least five and at most seven voting members of the Bigger Group," period, then there might be some kind of ambiguity, but we could be confident that the rule limits the committee's membership to those Big Group Members. But as quoted, it is not so clear. No, not. Even if Andy had filled in "one x" to say what, or who, "x" is. Hence the ambiguity that Trina brought up, and which Rob squirmed and avoided mentioning.

As I see it, the challenge is that one of the committee members is not a member of the Bigger Group. As I read this Standing Rule, that person is not required to be a member of the Bigger Group, because he will qualify for membership in the committee if he is "one x, [or a] representatives from more than one area of the Bigger Group, [or] at most one non-voting ex officio member".

Any more speculation might resemble trying to interpret Andy's group's (Smaller Group?) rule, which I'm obviously not gonna.

I apologize for the confusion, and perhaps consternation. I thank Nancy for her valiant effort to reply. I would like to try once more. I avoided mentioning that this is a university and so invite the common comparison of the inverse relationship between the ferocity of faculty fights and how much is at stake.

The Standing Rule says in its entirety (maybe it should be a bylaw, but we're interested in interpretation and application): "Membership in University faculty standing committees should contain at least five and at most seven voting members of the General Faculty; membership shall include one senator, representatives from more than one college, at most one non-voting ex officio member. (5/11/77)"

A person elected last year is not a member of the General Faculty, is not a senator, is not a member of a college, and is not the ex officio member (and by definition, senators and members of colleges are members of the General Faculty). The person is an administrator, if that is relevant. The person was misidentified during the nomination process. At least since 1977, only faculty from the categories mentioned above (General Faculty, etc)have been elected to serve on standing committees.

The question is whether or not this person (and similar others in the future) is eligible to be a member of a standing committee. The two conflicting interpretations of the rule are the "non-Exclusionary (as long as the other minimum requirements are met)" and the "Enumerative (as quoted in an earlier post)".

[Dan Honemann]

As stated on its Introductory Page, “this Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised”.

This question is not one concerning what is or is not proper parliamentary procedure under the rules in RONR. As a consequence, we respectfully request that those interested in pursuing this question do so by private email, or other means outside of this forum.