Resolutions, 10/27/09: Interpretive Recommendations of RPC Committee

To: File

From: Pete Walton, Chair, Secretary, Faculty Forum

Date: October 27, 2009

Re: Interpretive Recommendations of the School’s Bylaws and Rules

In its meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 2009, the Faculty Forum adopted the following recommendations of the Rules, Policy, and Credentials Committee without change:

Resolved, That the Bylaws and Rules of the School of Public Health and Information Sciences are interpreted for Robert’s Rules of Order, Recently Revised, to be the parliamentary procedures governing all aspects of the school’s activities as a deliberative body and as covered by the aforementioned bylaws and rules.

Resolved, That the Bylaws and Rules of the School of Public Health and Information Sciences are interpreted to preclude a voting member of the Council of Chairs and Deans to also be voting member of a standing committee of the Executive Faculty (i.e., Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee; Rules, Policies, and Credentials Committee; Committee on Performance and Economic Welfare; and Student Academic Grievance Committee), regardless of whether by election or appointment.

Resolved, That the Bylaws and Rules of the School of Public Health and Information Sciences are interpreted to preclude an individual from being a voting member of more than one standing committee of the Executive Faculty (i.e., Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee; Rules, Policies, and Credentials Committee; Committee on Performance and Economic Welfare; and Student Academic Grievance Committee), regardless of whether by election or appointment.

In the same meeting the Faculty Forum adopted the following recommendation of the Rules, Policy, and Credentials Committee, as amended in italics:

Resolved, That the Bylaws and Rules of the School of Public Health and Information Sciences are interpreted to preclude more than one member of the same department be voting members of any one of three standing committees of the Executive Faculty (viz., Rules, Policies, and Credentials Committee; Committee on Performance and Economic Welfare; and Student Academic Grievance Committee), regardless of whether by election or appointment. The Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee is the sole exception to this interpretation, which should be reconsidered when the school’s governing documents (including the bylaws and rules and PAT document) are revised.

These resolutions are taken verbatim from the minutes of the Faculty Forum.

To: Faculty Forum and its members

From: Pete Walton, Chair, Secretary, Faculty Forum

Date: October 21, 2009

Re: Interpretive Recommendations of Rules, Policy, and Credentials Committee

In accordance with our bylaws and rules, on September 17, 2009, Dean Clover send a request for interpretive recommendations to the Rules, Policy, and Credentials Committee (RPCC). A copy of this request is the attachment to the RPCC’s minutes, which are attached to this memo.

On Friday, October 2, 2009, the RPCC met and adopted four resolutions on the interpretations of the bylaws; they are:

Resolved, That the Bylaws and Rules of the School of Public Health and Information Sciences are interpreted to preclude more than one member of the same department be voting members of a standing committee of the Executive Faculty (i.e., Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee; Rules, Policies, and Credentials Committee; Committee on Performance and Economic Welfare; and Student Academic Grievance Committee), regardless of whether by election or appointment.

Also see the attached minutes.

In accordance with our bylaws and rules, the recommendations of the RPCC have been forwarded to the dean. In addition our bylaws require the Faculty Forum to act on the RPCC’s recommendations, which are being forwarded herewith.

The relevant section of the Bylaws is Appendix 2, Section 2.A.2.b, which reads:

“Upon the request of the Executive Faculty, the Faculty Forum, the Dean, or by petition of 10 Executive Members, the [Rules, Policy, and Credentials] Committee shall formulate interpretations relative to these Bylaws and Rules. Interpretive recommendations of the Committee are communicated to the Dean and are forwarded to the Faculty Forum for action (Art. IV, Sec. 4). In event of an impasse between the Dean and the Executive Faculty, the Dean’s decision is final, and the record of the objection by the Executive Faculty is forwarded by the Secretary of the Executive Faculty to the President.”

Meeting Minutes of Rules, Policies, and Credentials Committee

Friday, October 2, 2009

Members present: Drs. Ruth Carrico, Chair; Kathy Baumgartner; Barry Wainscott.

Members absent: none.

Others present: Dr. Pete Walton, Faculty Forum liaison (non-voting) and acting recording secretary

A special meeting was called to order by the chair at 2:00 P.M. The committee does not have regularly scheduled meetings.

There being no previous meeting whose minutes have not already been approved, there were no minutes to review and approve.

The sole agenda item was a request from the dean for interpretive recommendations of the school’s bylaws. The dean’s request is attached hereto and is considered as part of these minutes.

After an extended discussion of the bylaws and their intent and language, the following were moved and approved unanimously:

In addition, based on the above resolutions, the committee concluded it was obligated to additionally move and approve the following related interpretations:

Resolved, That the Bylaws and Rules of the School of Public Health and Information Sciences are interpreted to preclude more than one member of the same department be voting members of a standing committee of the Executive Faculty (i.e., Promotion, Appointment, and Tenure Committee; Rules, Policies, and Credentials Committee; Committee on Performance and Economic Welfare; and Student Academic Grievance Committee), regardless of whether by election or appointment.

The committee was informed by Dr. Walton, Faculty Forum liaison, that he will forward the above resolutions to the Faculty Forum, in the form of these minutes,

The meeting was adjourned at 3:35 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter L. Walton, M.D., Acting Recording Secretary

Ruth Carrico, Ph.D., Chair

Attachment

To: Dr. Ruth Carrico, Chair, Rules, Procedures, and Credentials Committee

From: Dr. Rick Clover, Dean

Date: September 17, 2009

Subject: Request for Interpretive Recommendations of Bylaws and Rules

I request the Rules, Procedures, and Credentials Committee to formulate interpretations relative to the school’s Bylaws and Rules (“Bylaws”), as specified below. This request is in accord with Bylaws, Appendix 2, Section 2.A.2.b, which reads:

“Upon the request of the Executive Faculty, the Faculty Forum, the Dean, or by petition of 10 Executive Members, the Committee shall formulate interpretations relative to these Bylaws and Rules. Interpretive recommendations of the Committee are communicated to the Dean and are forwarded to the Faculty Forum for action (Art. IV, Sec. 4). In event of an impasse between the Dean and the Executive Faculty, the Dean’s decision is final, and the record of the objection by the Executive Faculty is forwarded by the Secretary of the Executive Faculty to the President.”

The requested interpretations are the following:

May Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised be taken as generally applicable to the formation and functioning of committees and other deliberative bodies of the school governed by Bylaws?
May voting members of the Council of Chairs and Deans be voting members of the standing committees of the Executive Faculty specified in Bylaws?

Discussion

(1) May Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised be taken as generally applicable to the formation and functioning of committees and other deliberative bodies of the school governed by Bylaws?

Considerations:

· No rules of order are specified or denied in Bylaws, except as listed below.

· No allowance or procedure for adopting rules of order is specified or denied in Bylaws.

· Committees and other deliberative bodies need to govern parliamentary procedures, whether by having its rules of order specified in Bylaws, by establishing its own rules of order, or by adopting another set of rules of order.

· Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised (“RONR”) is neither specified nor denied in Bylaws as generally applicable in activities of the School covered by Bylaws, except as listed below.

· RONR is specified in the following places in Bylaws:

o “…. Parliamentary procedures follow Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised.” Article II. General Faculty: Membership and Privileges of Membership.

o “Parliamentary procedures shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised [sic].” Article III. Executive Faculty. / Section 3. Meetings. / E.

o “Parliamentary procedures shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised.” Appendix 7: The Council of Chairs and Deans: Operations, Membership, Officers, and Meetings. / Section 3. Meetings. / C.

· Parliamentary procedures are not defined as limited to use of rules of order during meetings but also apply to policies, duties, and functioning in general.

“Parliamentary procedure refers to the rules of democracy—that is, the commonly accepted way in which a group of people come together, present and discuss possible courses of action, and make decisions.

“Parliamentary procedure is used by all types of decision-making bodies on a daily basis: school boards, homeowners' associations, city councils, and non-profit boards of directors, for example. Parliamentary procedure also defines what duties people typically have when they are elected the president, secretary, or treasurer of an organization.

“Fundamentally, parliamentary procedure defines how groups of people, no matter how formal or informal, can most effectively meet and make decisions in a fair, consistent manner—and make good use of everyone's time. Even a basic background in parliamentary principles can help you and your organization hold more efficient meetings.

“The National Association of Parliamentarians bases its opinions and instruction upon Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. The most widely used parliamentary authority in the United States [is RONR].” (http://parliamentarians.org/procedure.php)

“Parliamentary procedure, often used interchangeably with ‘parliamentary law,’ is more correctly defined as parliamentary law in combination with the rules of order that a given assembly or organization has adopted.

“Parliamentary law is:

o rules of the game of democracy.

o rules that govern procedures by which civil and criminal laws are made and adopted.

o rules and customs that govern deliberative and decision-making assemblies and organizations.

“The term rules of order refers to written rules of parliamentary procedure formally adopted by a group of people or by an organization. These rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in facilitating the conduct of business. Written rules of order help ensure that the organization functions smoothly and that questions about procedure can be resolved quickly and fairly. An organization's rules of order may include bylaws, standing rules, policy manuals, and other rules.” (http://parliamentarians.org/definition.php) [Italics as in original]

Pro: RONR is specified as governing parliamentary procedures for both the General Faculty and the Executive Faculty, with the latter under the heading of “Meetings,” as listed above. Since the General and Executive Faculties comprise the entire faculty of the school, Bylaws may be seen as specifying RONR as applying to at least meetings of the faculty, which include all committees and subcommittees of the faculty. However, as presented above, parliamentary procedures do not appear to be limited to meetings. It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that the intent of Bylaws is that RONR should govern parliamentary procedures for all aspects covered by Bylaws.

Con: RONR is not generally applicable unless either Bylaws expressly state RONR as generally applicable or the school has adopted by resolution RONR as generally applicable. The argument that Bylaws so state is mistaken in that RONR are expressly cited only for meetings, except for the General Faculty, in which case RONR is cited at the end of a discussion about meetings. An appropriate action in this matter is for the Executive Faculty to pass a resolution to adopt RONR to govern parliamentary procedures except where superseded by Bylaws, university or school policy, or special rules adopted by the school or by school committees, the latter of which applies only to the committee that adopted the special rule.

(2) May voting members of the Council of Chairs and Deans be voting members of the standing committees of the Executive Faculty specified in Bylaws?