A subcommittee has been established to determine whether the subcommittee established in March was necessary, with findings expected in the spring.

The March subcommittee was itself formed to review the workload of the main committee, which it has increased.

“There was concern about the number of bodies,” said chair Perpetua Halligan. “A body was required to examine that concern.”

The Institute for Deliberative Structures reports that organisations reliably respond to procedural excess by producing more procedure, because the alternative requires someone to decide something alone.

“A committee cannot be blamed,” said Dr. Ignatius Vellacourt. “That is not a flaw in the design. That is the design.”

The new subcommittee has six members, four of whom sit on the body under review, and has adopted terms of reference running to two pages. Item one is a definition of the word “necessary,” which occupied its first session entirely.

The group will report to the main committee, which will receive the report, thank the group, and refer it to a subcommittee for consideration.

A motion to dissolve all subcommittees was raised on Tuesday and was, by unanimous agreement, referred.