Motion superceding a committee's obligation

[Guest Kevin]

I am somewhat new to this, and I cannot quote chapter and vers, however I seem to recall something that a motion is out of order if it violates federal or local law, the constitution and bylaws of an organization or any standing rules of an organization.

Having said that is it propped for a motion to come from the floor even though there is a committee tasked with bringing that topic to the floor? For example, say you have a Personnel Committee, and before that committee brings the recommendation before the orginazation to hire a certain individual somebody from the general body brings the motion to the floor.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... that a motion is out of order if it violates federal or local law, the constitution and bylaws of an organization or any standing rules of an organization.

In general, yes.

If you have a rule in place, "Don't do X," then it is out of order to make a motion, "That we do X."

The proper step should have been to rescind the rule (whatever prohibited you from spontaneously doing X), or to amend the rule, first.

Then make your motion to do X.

However, you are free to adopt motions contrary to a law, such as, so that you may have legal standing to challenge that law in court. Or, to challenge a rule being imposed on you from a higher (national?) parent organization.

An example from the turbulent 1960s or 1950s might be this one:

In Alabama, you wish to challenge a state law which might have said, "No people of color shall sit in the front section of the bus."

Here, it would acceptable within Robert's Rules of Order for a civil rights organization to adopt a motion, "That we all ride the Main Street bus tomorrow at noon, and sit in the front of the bus."

(That is, you wish to challenge the state law directly.)

This is parliamentarily allowable. - You are free to break contracts and break the law and thus run the legal risk of the legal consequences.

Robert's Rules won't stop you.

(Even if someone else will!)

Is it proper for a motion to come from the floor even though there is a committee tasked with bringing that topic to the floor?

For example, say you have a Personnel Committee,

and before that committee brings the recommendation before the orginazation (to hire a certain individual),

somebody from the general body brings the motion to the floor.

In general, no.

Once an organization delegates a task or duty to a committee, then the organization cannot make a motion which will make the delegated task either

(1.) a duplicate action; or

(2.) a contrary action.

The proper step should have been to discharge that committee of the task/duty first.

Then, you may directly handle the task or duty, without that conflict of #1 or #2 occurring.

[Gary Novosielski]

I am somewhat new to this, and I cannot quote chapter and vers, however I seem to recall something that a motion is out of order if it violates federal or local law, the constitution and bylaws of an organization or any standing rules of an organization.

Having said that is it propped for a motion to come from the floor even though there is a committee tasked with bringing that topic to the floor? For example, say you have a Personnel Committee, and before that committee brings the recommendation before the orginazation to hire a certain individual somebody from the general body brings the motion to the floor.

It is not proper to offer a motion which is the same as one that is already under consideration by a committee. But that's not to say that everything of a particular "topic"would be out of order, just because that committee often deals with that topic, unless that's a rule in your organization.

But the assembly does have the power to reach into a committee and take the question back out of the committee's hands. This is called a motion To Discharge a Committee (from further consideration of _______). If the committee was a select committee dealing with a single question, the committee is simply discharged, ceases to exist, and the question is back in the hands of the assembly. In the case of a standing committee (such as your Personnel committee appears to be) the discharge motion would specify exactly which question (person) the committee was being discharged from considering, and again, the assembly has control of the question, in essentially the same condition as when it was referred to the committee in the first place.

[Guest Kevin]

Thank you for your replies. I was leaning in that direction, but was not positive.

[hmtcastle]

In the case of a standing committee (such as your Personnel committee appears to be) the discharge motion would specify exactly which question (person) the committee was being discharged from considering, and again, the assembly has control of the question, in essentially the same condition as when it was referred to the committee in the first place.

Assuming that a standing committee's area of responsibility is defined in the bylaws, wouldn't the bar be set a bit higher if the assembly wanted to "discharge" some of that responsibility? In other words, would a majority vote be sufficient?

[Josh Martin]

Assuming that a standing committee's area of responsibility is defined in the bylaws, wouldn't the bar be set a bit higher if the assembly wanted to "discharge" some of that responsibility? In other words, would a majority vote be sufficient?

The fact that a particular motion falls within the standing committee's area of responsibility, in and of itself, would not affect the vote required for the motion to Discharge a Committee.