NationStates Jolt Archive

This is part one of several Resolutions that go back to my idea about Standardizing chemical transportation. It occured to me that there are probably too many permutations of chemical transportation to cover them all in just one Resolution. I could be wrong, though, so expect this draft to go through a lot of changes, based both on my research and your comments.

Here is a link to the thread where the whole series will be discussed. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=491368)


WHEREAS chemicals are a widely, internationally traded commodity within and without the UN

WHEREAS many such materials require extreme care when transporting

WHEREAS no procedural guidelines currently exist for the safe international transportation of such hazardous materials

CONVINCED of the need to establish guidelines for the safe international transportation of hazardous materials

The United Nations;

DEFINES "hazardous materials" as substances that have any one or more of the following chemical properties:
-- Carcinogenic properties
-- Flash points below 32 degrees Celsius
-- High toxicity
-- Mutagenic properties
-- pH of lower than 3
-- pH of higher than 12
-- Radioactivity of at least 75 millirads/hour
-- Shock sensitivity
-- Taratogenic properties

DEFINES, for the purpose of this Resolution, "international transportation" as the movement of hazardous materials over international borders, or international waters

MANDATES that hazardous materials be clearly marked as such on all faces of all containers storing hazardous materials

MANDATES that all vehicles transporting hazardous materials be clearly marked as transporting hazardous materials

EXCLUDES from the above clause vehicles under the purview of a government sanctioned military

ESTABLISHES the United Nations Hazardous Materials Comission (UNHMC) to outline and define what constitutes the safe methods for transporting hazardous materials

MANDATES all member nations to comply with UNHMC regulations

URGES all member nations to ensure the safety of all vessels and persons transporting hazardous materials

URGES all member nations to maintain records accounting for all hazardous materials

Category and strength?

It needs a lot of work. My initial concerns are with listing the properties that make a chemical hazardous, and then, dictating what levels of the proprties are suitable. I did a little bit of research, so the numbers I did use aren't just arbitrarily chosen, but I'm sure they could be better.

Another is the establishment of the commission. I know many people here hate beauracracy, but there's really no way to list all of the necessary components in a Resolution. However, my house of cards question:
If I make a more preliminary proposal that has a provision for the establishment of the commission, can I expand that commissions duties with each proposal in the series? I am doubting the viability of this as a first proposal for the series.

If I make a more preliminary proposal that has a provision for the establishment of the commission, can I expand that commissions duties with each proposal in the series? I am doubting the viability of this as a first proposal for the series.Believe you will find that however you call this 'Series' or what it will be seen as amending the first one as that is how I would see any additional proposal that builds or is a series based on this. However MODs will have to say how that applies as far as the rule of no ammending resolutions.. as I'm not able to say for them... just how I see it.

Believe you will find that however you call this 'Series' or what it will be seen as amending the first one as that is how I would see any additional proposal that builds or is a series based on this. However MODs will have to say how that applies as far as the rule of no ammending resolutions.. as I'm not able to say for them... just how I see it.

They won't be amending one another. One will deal with Hazardous materials, one with enumerating all chemicals to create a standard list, one will possibly deal with what the UNHMC would be doing (defining parameters for safe transportation of chemicals) should it be decided that a UN commission cannot be used in more than one Resolution.

They will all deal with separate matters that all deal with chemical transportation safety, as I don't feel that one Resolution could adequately cover all of them.

The problem I see is if that Commission is formed in say one resolution then it goes should that resolution be repealed and replaced. Thus you would be left with no standing commission on those resolutions that come along and supposedly use the say HazMat Com.. formed in Resolution #1.. since when R1 goes the ghomes go back to chasing women and drinking.. until they are called on again to work on another commission or committe.

The problem I see is if that Commission is formed in say one resolution then it goes should that resolution be repealed and replaced. Thus you would be left with no standing commission on those resolutions that come along and supposedly use the say HazMat Com.. formed in Resolution #1.. since when R1 goes the ghomes go back to chasing women and drinking.. until they are called on again to work on another commission or committe.

Well that's why I'm concerned about a house of cards violation. However, my idea would be that while one Resolution founds a com. others use it, the Resolution itself doesn't own the commission. Once its founded, its founded, and can be used, unless the major purpose of the Resolution IS the com.

Then I see it as house of cards since first resolution sets up a COM for something.. and once that resolution goes out that COM no longer exists..

If you later in a second proposal use the established COM to perform tasks under yours you go to ammending the functions of the COM as they only do what is said they do in a proposal nothing more. Thus any later addition to their function is amending the original functions... that is also ilegal.. Thus you would have to, as I see it, form a single COM for each given it's finctions only in your proposal thus not amending one or using the other.

To get clear rule on this mods would have to say.. Also would probably have to see the next proposal and how it worded to see if it violates rules.

Just to be an asshole, I'd like to point out that the pH of stomach acid is typically between 2 and 3, which, according to this proposal, would make base-line humans "containers transporting hazardous materials"...

Just to be an asshole, I'd like to point out that the pH of stomach acid is typically between 2 and 3, which, according to this proposal, would make base-line humans "containers transporting hazardous materials"...Speakiing of AH what about the flash point of that gas that might be released from one.... Can see your point here...

This is why you shouldn't include the initial list of qualifiers for HazMat status - you'll have (no offence to those who've spoken already) no end of ridiculous twistings of them by those seeking any reason to vote against a proposal. If you're setting up a committee, allow them to set what qualifies for HazMat status as well.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Just to be an asshole, I'd like to point out that the pH of stomach acid is typically between 2 and 3, which, according to this proposal, would make base-line humans "containers transporting hazardous materials"...

Do you also use public toilets and piss on the seat? Do you walk around in the summertime saying, "How about this heat"? :p

Yes. Yes I do.:p

One minor quibble: "teratogenic" rather than "taratogenic"...
Would the toxicity/mutagenicity/teratogenicity criteria be applied only if the substance has that effect on at least one kind of sapient beings, or if it could affect any species (no matter how non-sapient that might be) instead?

Re re-use of committees: Hasn't the 'United Nations Free Trade Commission' (UNFTC) that was established by resolution #131, the 'Global Food Distribution Act', been invoked in some subsequent resolutions & proposals?

This is why you shouldn't include the initial list of qualifiers for HazMat status - you'll have (no offence to those who've spoken already) no end of ridiculous twistings of them by those seeking any reason to vote against a proposal. If you're setting up a committee, allow them to set what qualifies for HazMat status as well.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We must agree with our distinguished colleague from Gruenberg. A list with any substantial degree of specificity would be a godsend for the loophole lovers and knee-jerk negativists. We strongly support this initiative, and would hate to see it flounder on such grounds.

We think it might be good to look into the mythical land of RL to find some reasonable definitions of "hazardous materials" to mull over, concoct a good one, and leave it to the committee to determine which specific materials fit the definition.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Then I see it as house of cards since first resolution sets up a COM for something.. and once that resolution goes out that COM no longer exists..

If you later in a second proposal use the established COM to perform tasks under yours you go to ammending the functions of the COM as they only do what is said they do in a proposal nothing more. Thus any later addition to their function is amending the original functions... that is also ilegal.. Thus you would have to, as I see it, form a single COM for each given it's finctions only in your proposal thus not amending one or using the other.

To get clear rule on this mods would have to say.. Also would probably have to see the next proposal and how it worded to see if it violates rules.

No, it wouldn't be an amendment, because an amendment is a change. The further use of a commission wouldn't be a change to its original purposes, but an addition.

This is why you shouldn't include the initial list of qualifiers for HazMat status - you'll have (no offence to those who've spoken already) no end of ridiculous twistings of them by those seeking any reason to vote against a proposal. If you're setting up a committee, allow them to set what qualifies for HazMat status as well.

That was my concern as well.

I will redraft this to exclude specific parameters and leave it up to a committee. As much as many people hate committees, I think this is one such case where it wouldn't be too frowned upon.

In this case, I'm going to think about consolidating all the proposals (others not yet completely drafted) into one, using a committee to set parameters. For now, I'll leave this thread alone for a time and use the other one for the discussion about the consolidation. If that doesn't occur, I'll continue with the series idea.

No, it wouldn't be an amendment, because an amendment is a change. The further use of a commission wouldn't be a change to its original purposes, but an addition..This is where you miss on amending things as it's not always changing the original idea or issue. Amendments add to also the original idea or issue. As an example only here..

If say the HazMat Com in first proposal was only set to establish what is a HAZMAT item then that is all the COM would do. If later you decided that this same HazMat Com needed to conduct inspections of site where HazMat items stored then you are ammending it's functions from what it was set to do to start with. It would still determine what is a HazMat item and the new one would give it the authority to inspect sites those items stored at.. Add later that it can fine or shut down sites not complying with the standards and again more amending unless you set it to have that power in the second one along with the power to insepect the sites. Any adding to an issue or idea is amending it, and it don't always mean direct changes to the first just adding onto that idea. Also if you never gave it authority in the first one to set standards for storing HazMat items then any action to do so would be amending it's functions thus not legal until you repeal and replace the original to include all that you want the HazMat to be able to do in one. You can't spread their functions out in several proposals as each would be an amendment on the first.

Again this is only how I see this and not a view the mods may give...

This is where you miss on amending things as it's not always changing the original idea or issue. Amendments add to also the original idea or issue. As an example only here..

If say the HazMat Com in first proposal was only set to establish what is a HAZMAT item then that is all the COM would do. If later you decided that this same HazMat Com needed to conduct inspections of site where HazMat items stored then you are ammending it's functions from what it was set to do to start with. It would still determine what is a HazMat item and the new one would give it the authority to inspect sites those items stored at.. Add later that it can fine or shut down sites not complying with the standards and again more amending unless you set it to have that power in the second one along with the power to insepect the sites. Any adding to an issue or idea is amending it, and it don't always mean direct changes to the first just adding onto that idea. Also if you never gave it authority in the first one to set standards for storing HazMat items then any action to do so would be amending it's functions thus not legal until you repeal and replace the original to include all that you want the HazMat to be able to do in one. You can't spread their functions out in several proposals as each would be an amendment on the first.

Again this is only how I see this and not a view the mods may give...

I understand how you reason that. I would like to know, from the mods, if additions to commission duties counts as an amendment and/or house of cards violation.

In principle, I don't have too much of a concern about adding to committees; it makes them less worthless.

Unfortunately, it runs a serious risk of HoC. If the Resolution that defines the committee you're modifying is Repealed, you're now in a situation where there's no committee to do the work and you're SOL.

I understand how you reason that. I would like to know, from the mods, if additions to commission duties counts as an amendment and/or house of cards violation.

OOC:

Not a mod (thank goodness), but I figured I'd put my two cents in. To me, the key is this sentence from the House of Cards rule:

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance.

To me, this means that all provisions of the proposal must be able to remain in force, even if a prior resolution was to be repealed. If you assign duties to a committee created by a prior resolution and that resolution is repealed, that part of your later resolution is voided because the committee no longer exists. As I see it, this is the sort of thing the HoC rule was created to prevent.

Now I'll wait patiently for Hack to tell me why I'm all wrong. ;)

OOC:

ROTF! :D Simultaneous posts by me and Hack. Figured I'd leave mine for the chuckle value.

Can a resolution be binary, in that it creates a committee if no suitable one exists, but if another resolution already contains a suitable committee, the second one is not created?

Or does that cause the universe to implode?

Simulpost ftw.

In principle, I don't have too much of a concern about adding to committees; it makes them less worthless.

Unfortunately, it runs a serious risk of HoC. If the Resolution that defines the committee you're modifying is Repealed, you're now in a situation where there's no committee to do the work and you're SOL.

I don't see a problem.

The new tasks assigned to the pre-existing committee then become the only tasks to the committee if the original resolution is repealed. The way to completely destroy the committee would be to take out all of the resolutions that assigned tasks to that committee. The repeals are focused on the tasks.

Essentially think of it this way ... each resolution already impacts previous resolutions, blockers the obvious example. So there is going to be some degree of "history", which that is fine too, as we "strike-though" resolutions that are repealed, we don't remove all references to those resolutions.

I'm *slowly* building the 2004-UN resolutions into NSWiki (as I was active around then). I think the idea of people focusing on tasks and not committees should be encouraged, as in 2004 Hersfold and I ran into problems when we tried to make a follow-up resolution to the UNEC (UN Educational Committee) that explained where we felt it would get funding and how it would conduct its business. If each resolution has to create a new committee, instead of just assuming there is a UN "Executive" branch that will work out the finer details, then we'll end up arguing more about those details instead of the bigger picture. 2004 kinda sucked, I'd vote we just not take the House of Cards rule so literally.

Mmm... difference of interpretation, though. Here's how I'm looking at it:

Resolution #852 creates the Invisible Pink Unicorn Trade Zeitgeist.
Resolution #913 adds additional duties to IPUTZ.
Resolution #985 Repeals #852.
IPUTZ, because of the Repeal, is dissolved and ceases to exist as it's source of funding and justification has been removed.
#913 is now calling on a Committee that no longer exists, thus collapsing it in a...
...House of Cards
QED

So perhaps I lose the HazMat proposal as a proposal and take some of the material and put it into a consolidated chemical proposal, to avoid the house of cards? I don't want to go founding 2, 3 committees.

We see the HOC but feel that the rule on ammending must also be considered here as equal to it. Since the intent of a resolution is based on what it alone says and not what folks may feel later about the issue.

An example would be say one forms a committee to count rocks.. and that all this committee is suppose to do. Later somebody comes along and decides this committee should be painting all these rocks. The intent of the first was simply to count the rocks not paint them. Thus that is all the committee was formed to do.. Amending the duties is changing the intent of the original in that it now has them painting rocks as well as counting them..

Had this been included in the original it might have failed to pass simply on the idea of that they would also paint the rocks not just count them. This leaves way for later problems like coming along and proposing that this committee go an crush all rocks over Y CCM in size down to no more than X CCM in size. Again changing the intent of the original reason this committee was formed and the idea behind the first proposal just to count rocks..

Thus you have HOC and fact it is in form ammending the duties of the original commettee beyond intent given in the first resolution.

Mmm... difference of interpretation, though. Here's how I'm looking at it:

Resolution #852 creates the Invisible Pink Unicorn Trade Zeitgeist.
Resolution #913 adds additional duties to IPUTZ.
Resolution #985 Repeals #852.
IPUTZ, because of the Repeal, is dissolved and ceases to exist as it's source of funding and justification has been removed.
#913 is now calling on a Committee that no longer exists, thus collapsing it in a...
...House of Cards
QED

Let's look at a RL example:

50-years ago the California Department of Water Resources is cobbled together by the State Legislature from the old State Water Board and Office of the State Engineer. That piece of legislation directs the new agency to assume the resonsibilities of the old agency.

A few years later the State Legislature authorizes CADWR to begin to design a massive "State Water Project" <--- adding a new task to an existing "committee".

The public approves the SWP, so the State Legislature then tells CADWR to build it.

While building the project in phases, political attention is given to one of the final phases ... a peripheral canal that bypasses the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. San Francisco has a hissy fit (which is all too frakkin common in California politics, ask anybody *not* from the Bay-Area). A public vote is held, and the peripheral canal is *removed* from the SWP drawing board (well kinda ... So.Cal is designing it again under a new name, it isn't a half bad idea). ;)

Let's pretend that the Legislature decides that CADWR has grown too big and essentially overturns the decision that created DWR ... in the real world, that new legislation would break the kindom: there would be folks whom operate the SWP feeding 23 million people, there would be the flood control gurus whom protection some 33 million people, and they might break the local assistance group into their own committee.


For NationStates, I'm suggesting that when we repeal a resolution in which a committee was created, that magically any resolution that made use of that committee defacto creates a "new" comittee by the same name, but only with the functions granted to it by that resolution.

Resolution A creates the International Red Cross.
Resolution A makes use of IRC to do X, Y, Z.
Resolution B assigns W, V, and U to the IRC.
Resolution C assigns T and S to the IRC.
Resolution D assigns R, Q, and P to the IRC.

Resolution A is repealed and the IRC as we know it is "broken" apart. It no longer has any legal mandate to do X, Y, Z ... but it still has the mandate to do P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, and W. The committee was created in the first place as "flavour" text / RPing elements, but the work that previous resolutions made use of wasn't a house of cards ... they could have created their own committees, but they wanted to mimic real life and keep some sort of symbolic connection.

It seems pretty fair to me, and focuses debates on the *activativing* clauses of resolutions and tasks that we ultimately assign to committees. If it helps we can make a smaller "clarification" rule, but I really would like to discourage against a House of Rules interpetation that we can't recycle administrative garbage.

So perhaps I lose the HazMat proposal as a proposal and take some of the material and put it into a consolidated chemical proposal, to avoid the house of cards? I don't want to go founding 2, 3 committees.If you're willing to ride this out, you may not have to change anything. I'm currently feeling that it's HoC, but that's not set in stone. If you want to rework to eliminate this potential issue, we can take the discussion elsewhere. Your call.


<stuff>Yesss... but.

The RL example is handy (if a little confusing), but it doesn't quite apply in regards to the UN, which tends to be more all-or-nothing. The risk with allowing Proposals to use existing committees is that it makes it very difficult to do away with the bloody things. Look at the World Heritage List. Imagine if there was another Resolution that also did something with it. Repealing the original Resolution then wouldn't get rid of that heavily abused list.

On the other hand, I really do like the idea of expanding committee work. I honestly do as I think it adds an interesting dimension to the UN. I'm just really concerned about this HoC issue which leaves us with the potential for committees that require multiple Repeals to actually get rid of.

The RL example is handy (if a little confusing),

It is government ... it is supposed to be confusing, confounding, and expensive beyond belief. ;)


Look at the World Heritage List. Imagine if there was another Resolution that also did something with it. Repealing the original Resolution then wouldn't get rid of that heavily abused list.

Bear in mind that the World Heritage List (on NSWiki) wasn't abused for easily over a year ... it wasn't until somebody had some idle time and a *point* to prove did it become subjected to vandalism. Look at the history of edits, and you'll see there was a year it was pretty much Freedonia, myself, and one other nation that even considered using it.


On the other hand, I really do like the idea of expanding committee work. I honestly do as I think it adds an interesting dimension to the UN. I'm just really concerned about this HoC issue which leaves us with the potential for committees that require multiple Repeals to actually get rid of.

I think the key to understanding *my* position / opinion is that repeals shouldn't target the *committee*, but the tasks assigned to that committee.

Think about it, we could do away with the President of the United States or even the Congress, but there *always* will be: (1) an executive, and (2) a legislature. In my own roleplay I talk about the Mikitivity "Council of Mayors" which I've modeled after a joint executive / legislature -- cantons appoint their rep to a ruling body ... but what it really is *is* an executive branch (i.e. charged with running the national govt) appointed by a local legislature, which writes laws.

So great, no US President, instead we create a new executive and call him the Silly Clown. He will still be in charge of short-term decisions, be the figurehead, and maybe even still keep the keys to the White House. The real power is to decide *how* the executive gets there (appointed, elected by an Electoral College that ignores the US West Coast, perhaps winner of the latest "Who Wants To Be A President" reality show) and what sorts of checks and balances the executive has.

Trust me, I work for the government ... they hand out and take away meaningless titles all the time. The *work* is what you have to make sure happens.

edit: I'm not trying to ignore your points ... I understand them, and I *do* recognize your logic. You are making sense. I'm just trying to advocate for a more liberal interpetation wrt committees <--- not knowing if I'm making your job easier or harder, but being fairly certain that a liberal "its all good" rule-set is easier on newbies and oldtimers alike. ;) (That is Mikitivian for Danke.)

I have an example from NS.

Yelda set up the UN Free Trade Commission (which incidentally could be a very interesting source of RP) in Resolution #130, "Global Food Distribution Act". But he intended it to be available to arbitrate all trade disputes, not just ones concerning food.

The UNFTC was then used to arbitrate disputes in "Nuclear Energy Research Act" and "UN Recycling Commission". And I would hope it could be used for more.

If GFDA is repealed - certainly not impossible - then UNFTC loses the resolution which established it. But it doesn't lose its mandate, simply by virtue of the fact other resolutions have since "authorised" it to perform certain functions. Thus, I would say it would be legal to reuse a committee.

And this is where the rule on "a proposal can't ONLY create a committee" comes in. If that sort of resolution were repealed, it would be far more obviously a vote against the committee as a whole, and thus having it used again would be more problematic.

Thus, I think the rules as they stand are strong enough that committees could be reused, provided they met with rules on amendments, MetaGaming, and so on.

Hm... so you think my example should read:

Resolution #852 creates the Invisible Pink Unicorn Trade Zeitgeist (to govern the trade of IPUs).
Resolution #913 adds additional duties to IPUTZ (such as official designations of different types of IPUs).
Resolution #985 Repeals #852.
IPUTZ, because of the Repeal, loses the ability to govern the trade of IPUs, but retains the authority and funding to grant various designations of various IPUs.

In other words, the original mission is ended and cancelled, but further missions continue. Hmm... there's something to be said for this interpretation. There's still a substantial HoC risk, especially if a new Proposal needs the old committee function.

Let's say that following the example that Gruenberg gave, that the second Resolution adds a branch to a committee -- such that were the first Resolution to be repealed, the branch of that committee would be all that remained of it.

Although I suppose that's really no different than creating another committee.

Hmm.

I'll mull it over in my head. I think I'm going to shoot for one single proposal that covers all of the things I have in mind regarding chemical classification and transportation.

Hm... so you think my example should read:

Resolution #852 creates the Invisible Pink Unicorn Trade Zeitgeist (to govern the trade of IPUs).
Resolution #913 adds additional duties to IPUTZ (such as official designations of different types of IPUs).
Resolution #985 Repeals #852.
IPUTZ, because of the Repeal, loses the ability to govern the trade of IPUs, but retains the authority and funding to grant various designations of various IPUs.

In other words, the original mission is ended and cancelled, but further missions continue. Hmm... there's something to be said for this interpretation. There's still a substantial HoC risk, especially if a new Proposal needs the old committee function.
That's exactly what I mean, yes. And I think the HoC risk - which I admit is present - is something to be dealt with in UN, not mod, terms (if you'll pardon the appalling phrasing. What I mean is, that seems more like an argument for a repeal, than for the mods to act.

Hm... so you think my example should read:

Resolution #852 creates the Invisible Pink Unicorn Trade Zeitgeist (to govern the trade of IPUs).
Resolution #913 adds additional duties to IPUTZ (such as official designations of different types of IPUs).
Resolution #985 Repeals #852.
IPUTZ, because of the Repeal, loses the ability to govern the trade of IPUs, but retains the authority and funding to grant various designations of various IPUs.

In other words, the original mission is ended and cancelled, but further missions continue. Hmm... there's something to be said for this interpretation. There's still a substantial HoC risk, especially if a new Proposal needs the old committee function.

1. Like Gruen mentioned ... you can't create a committee without giving it something to do ... *now* that should be a reason to pluck a proposal.

2. This is exactly ... well, almost exactly what I was saying. I'd ask that the group be called the Invisible Less-Than-Red Unicorn Trade Zeitgeist (ILUTZ), because whatever that other word is you've used is filtered out in Mikitivity (long story, but it involves a pack made by several "Black Widows" and we don't talk about it much).

OOC:

Er... guys... can I make a suggestion? Rather than us fussing about how to interpret the HoC rule, why not change it so we won't have to fuss? How about this as a quick addition to the rule:

"There's one exception to this.... You can assign duties to a commitee created by a prior resolution. Even if the older resolution is repealed, your new one will keep the committee alive."

OOC:

Er... guys... can I make a suggestion? Rather than us fussing about how to interpret the HoC rule, why not change it so we won't have to fuss? How about this as a quick addition to the rule:

"There's one exception to this.... You can assign duties to a commitee created by a prior resolution. Even if the older resolution is repealed, your new one will keep the committee alive."

Even if the interpretation changes, your clarification is straightforward and great ... though I'd say:

"...will keep the committee alive, but in a reduced capacity."

We still want repeals to have the potential to take away mandated tasks.

OOC:

Er... guys... can I make a suggestion? Rather than us fussing about how to interpret the HoC rule, why not change it so we won't have to fuss?Because I don't like to unilaterally change the rules. ;)

Because I don't like to unilaterally change the rules. ;)

OOC:

New policy, huh? ;)

OK, fair enough. I think the change -- either my original language or with Mik's addition -- is reasonable, appropriate, and positive. So what do I have to do to get it made?

OOC:

New policy, huh? ;)

OK, fair enough. I think the change -- either my original language or with Mik's addition -- is reasonable, appropriate, and positive. So what do I have to do to get it made?

OOC: Bribes. Lots and lots of bribes. :p

Perhaps future proposals should not use 'create x committee'. It either assumes that such a committee exists or if not, that it will be created following the resolution.
i.e. "Assigning y task to be undertaken by the x committee"

If a later resolution adds to x committee's tasks then it does all that's been assigned to it. If the previous resolution is repealed the committee only does what has been assigned to it in the later resolutions.