Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Quasi committee of the whole


Sean Hunt

Recommended Posts

A search for uses of the quasi committee of the whole turned up a whole bunch of references relating to RONR, a number from Jefferson's book on the Senate procedure, and not a whole lot else. My uneducated guess is that in the Senate, the primary feature of the quasi committee was a mechanism by which a bill could be considered at second reading, but if it was not to be referred to a committee, then it would still have to receive a report and, accordingly, have that report considered at the appropriate point in the order of business. This meant that senators could rely on all second reading amendments coming through the same process, even when a bill was not sent to a committee but considered only by the Senate (acting as it was as if in committee of the whole).

I am curious as to what the forum members think about this form of deliberation today, in small assemblies that do not adhere to such a strict order of business.

I'll first observe that the quasi committee seems to have little love from the authorship team:

But if any motion except an amendment is adopted, it automatically puts an end to the proceedings in quasi committee.

What of, say, a motion to Suspend the Rules? What if a question of privilege is admitted in preference to the pending motion?

Additionally, the mechanics of the quasi committee are effectively that the quasi committee is incapable of recommending that the motion be defeated, but is more than capable of killing it directly by way of adopting the motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

To me, the most desirable feature of the committee of the whole is the ability for the assembly to use it, often in conjunction with some additional rules in the motion to go into committee of the whole, to effect a means by which a matter can be given detailed consideration by a dedicated subset of members, while still ensuring that every member who wishes can participate in this and that the remaining members are given the opportunity to vote on the final disposition of the motion. Such a situation might arise in a political organization trying to hammer out a particularly important policy, or a large bylaw revision where some members have competing proposals, and while many members may not want to put in the time required to compare the various proposals, they would certainly wish to be present for the final vote. The device of using a committee ensures that no motions can be adopted that bind the assembly without consideration by the full assembly, especially if the assembly takes additional precautions (such as scheduling a recess to occur immediately after the committee rises).

Because the quasi committee---still having the full power of the assembly on all other matters---lacks this crucial feature, I feel that effectively, the only use of a quasi committee that I can imagine would be in a situation where the consideration of the report would be delayed, to ensure that every motion is effectively considered once by committee and once by the main assembly. I can only assume that this would be of little interest in most assemblies other than conventions.

I will add that I see one desirable feature in the quasi committee: it is capable of committing a motion directly without needing to seek approval of the parent assembly (which reinforces the notion that it was a device to ensure that a matter be considered twice). This power could, of course, be delegated to a proper committee of the whole to give it the advantage of the device, and an interesting side discussion would be the vote required to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious as to what the forum members think about this form of deliberation today, in small assemblies that do not adhere to such a strict order of business.

For small assemblies, I am skeptical that either Quasi-Committee of the Whole (or Committee of the Whole, for that matter) will have any practical use, and readers looking for something of this nature should instead focus on their user-friendly cousin, Informal Consideration. RONR itself notes that of the three methods, Informal Consideration is best suited to small meetings of ordinary societies (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 530, lines 33-34).

"But if any motion except an amendment is adopted, it automatically puts an end to the proceedings in quasi committee."

What of, say, a motion to Suspend the Rules? What if a question of privilege is admitted in preference to the pending motion?

I think "any motion except an amendment" is fairly clear. If a motion to Suspend the Rules is adopted, then the proceedings in quasi-committee are ended. If a question of privilege is handled as a motion, then the adoption of that motion would also end the proceedings.

I can only assume that this would be of little interest in most assemblies other than conventions.

I agree that Quasi-Committee of the Whole is not useful in most assemblies, but I would argue the same is true for Committee of the Whole. The motion for Informal Consideration is the best-suited of these three forms for ordinary assemblies. I also highly recommend the motion to Recess for situations like those you have described.

I will add that I see one desirable feature in the quasi committee: it is capable of committing a motion directly without needing to seek approval of the parent assembly (which reinforces the notion that it was a device to ensure that a matter be considered twice). This power could, of course, be delegated to a proper committee of the whole to give it the advantage of the device, and an interesting side discussion would be the vote required to do so.

It seems to me this would require a 2/3 vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<Sean Hunt, on 17 January 2013 - 02:40 AM, said:

"But if any motion except an amendment is adopted, it automatically puts an end to the proceedings in quasi committee."

What of, say, a motion to Suspend the Rules? What if a question of privilege is admitted in preference to the pending motion?>>

I think "any motion except an amendment" is fairly clear. If a motion to Suspend the Rules is adopted, then the proceedings in quasi-committee are ended. If a question of privilege is handled as a motion, then the adoption of that motion would also end the proceedings.

But maybe it's not all that clear. Some more context is needed:

"CONDUCT OF BUSINESS. In the quasi committee of the whole, the main question and any amendments that may be proposed are open to debate under the same rules as in a real committee of the whole—each member being allowed to speak an unlimited number of times as explained on pages 529–30. In contrast to the case of a real committee of the whole, however, any motion that would be in order in the assembly is also in order in the quasi committee, where it is debatable only to the extent permitted under the assembly's rules. But if any motion except an amendment is adopted, it automatically puts an end to the proceedings in quasi committee. Thus, for example, if a motion to refer the main question to an ordinary committee is made in quasi committee of the whole, such a motion to Commit would be equivalent to the following series of motions if the matter were being considered in a real committee of the whole: (1) that the committee of the whole rise; (2) that the committee of the whole be discharged from further consideration of the subject; and (3) that the question be referred to an ordinary committee." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 539, ll. 7-25)

Don't quote me on any of this (unless you include the disclaimer that I said not to quote me :-), but I suspect that "any motion except an amendment" is not really intended to include the incidental motions that are in order within a (real) committee of the whole as stated on page 533, lines 7-12, namely: "among the incidental motions, a point of order can be raised, an appeal from the decision of the chair can be made, a division of the assembly can be called for, and applicable requests and inquiries can be made."

I agree that the adoption of a motion to Suspend the Rules would end the proceedings in quasi committee. In the case of a question of privilege, however, I think that if the question is relevant to the handling of the pending business and can be handled as a request, then the granting of the request would not end the proceedings in quasi committee. On the other hand, if the question of privilege is an independent one, then I think the quasi committee would be ended as soon as the chair rules in favor of admitting the question. At that point, essentially there is a privileged motion -- Raise a Question of Privilege -- that has been "adopted".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I program computers incidently to by occupation. The "Committee of the Whole" and "Quasi-Committee of the Whole" are in that world code that rarely, if ever gets executed. Such code tends to be buggy. I am not suprised that there are some things that are not so clear cut here. But I am eager to learn more, and look forward to this discussion continuing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't quote me on any of this (unless you include the disclaimer that I said not to quote me :-), but I suspect that "any motion except an amendment" is not really intended to include the incidental motions that are in order within a (real) committee of the whole as stated on page 533, lines 7-12, namely: "among the incidental motions, a point of order can be raised, an appeal from the decision of the chair can be made, a division of the assembly can be called for, and applicable requests and inquiries can be made."

I don't think this is such a stretch given that a fair reading of the regular committee of the whole and the quasi committee lead one to believe the procedures in the quasi committee are easier and more freeing than in the regular committee of the whole. Parliamentary Law notes this as well on p. 293 Not allowing the aforementioned items to be dealt with in the quasi committee would seem to make it harder to navigate through and less preferable, which is not its intent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't quote me on any of this (unless you include the disclaimer that I said not to quote me :-), but I suspect that "any motion except an amendment" is not really intended to include the incidental motions that are in order within a (real) committee of the whole . . . namely: " . . . a division of the assembly can be called for . . ."

The tricky part is finding a way to adopt this motion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the adoption of a motion to Suspend the Rules would end the proceedings in quasi committee. In the case of a question of privilege, however, I think that if the question is relevant to the handling of the pending business and can be handled as a request, then the granting of the request would not end the proceedings in quasi committee. On the other hand, if the question of privilege is an independent one, then I think the quasi committee would be ended as soon as the chair rules in favor of admitting the question. At that point, essentially there is a privileged motion -- Raise a Question of Privilege -- that has been "adopted".

I apologize for a lack of clarity in my original post. It was a rhetorical question, and meant to highlight the fact that I find the quasi committee to be, at best, a confusing device, and at worst a useless one. I fully agree that a motion to Suspend the Rules would end the quasi committee; I question why that is so. Likewise, a question of privilege would interrupt it, though

Another issue with the rules specifying the quasi committee is that they create an awkward situation if a non-amendment motion is adopted when amendments have been adopted. If, for instance, the assembly decides to Recess, then all progress in the quasi committee is, from a parliamentary perspective, lost. While in some sense this will not truly be fatal to the conduct of business, even without the necessary two-thirds to Suspend the Rules and formally continue from where the quasi committee left off, it is rather awkward that the quasi committee cannot "survive" a Recess where a proper committee of the whole can (by reporting a recommendation to recess and sit again), and where informal consideration will probably* do so automatically. Even worse, a member could undo (from a parliamentary perspective only, of course) hours of work by raising a Question of Privilege that requires a motion to dispose of.

* RONR fails to specify the duration of a motion for informal consideration, although it seems most natural to consider it as functioning in the same way as a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, since it is effectively such a motion with a reduced vote threshold and precedence. Thus I would argue that a Recess ought to have no effect on informal consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* RONR fails to specify the duration of a motion for informal consideration, although it seems most natural to consider it as functioning in the same way as a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, since it is effectively such a motion with a reduced vote threshold and precedence. Thus I would argue that a Recess ought to have no effect on informal consideration.

I agree that a motion to Recess would not end informal consideration, but I'm not sure where you get the idea that RONR fails to specify its duration. Informal Consideration is concluded when the main question is disposed of or when the assembly adopts a motion to return to the formal rules of debate (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 541, lines 11-17). I'm not sure Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is always a good analogue, though. It seems that under the rules on pg. 541, the informal consideration would end if the motion was postponed or laid on the table, regardless of when consideration of the question was resumed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another issue with the rules specifying the quasi committee is that they create an awkward situation if a non-amendment motion is adopted when amendments have been adopted. If, for instance, the assembly decides to Recess, then all progress in the quasi committee is, from a parliamentary perspective, lost.

Why do you say that all progress is lost when the quasi-committee ends?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say that all progress is lost when the quasi-committee ends?

Because RONR is rather explicit that a quasi committee reports only if its business is not interrupted by the adoption of another motion, and implies (via the example of a motion to Commit) that any other motion is roughly equivalent to discharging the committee, which in normal circumstances does in fact cause the committee to lose all its business.

I think this is rather absurd myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to provide a quasi committee report anyway (probably by unanimous consent) on the business completed. But this is what the text indicates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you say that all progress is lost when the quasi-committee ends?

Because RONR is rather explicit that a quasi committee reports only if its business is not interrupted by the adoption of another motion, and implies (via the example of a motion to Commit) that any other motion is roughly equivalent to discharging the committee, which in normal circumstances does in fact cause the committee to lose all its business.

I think this is rather absurd myself, and I wouldn't hesitate to provide a quasi committee report anyway (probably by unanimous consent) on the business completed. But this is what the text indicates.

Where is this explicit statement to which you allude?

And, as far as the equivalence to discharging the committee, that is specifically regarding a motion to Commit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is this explicit statement to which you allude?

p. 539, ll. 28-29 "If the quasi committee is not brought to an end as described in the preceding paragraph, ..."

This isn't as far as an outright statement saying that the amendments adopted are not reported should the quasi committee meet an untimely demise, but that would be my interpretation based solely on the language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p. 539, ll. 28-29 "If the quasi committee is not brought to an end as described in the preceding paragraph, ..."

This isn't as far as an outright statement saying that the amendments adopted are not reported should the quasi committee meet an untimely demise, but that would be my interpretation based solely on the language.

That's not how I read it. Again, the context is "The motion to rise is not used in quasi committee of the whole. If the quasi committee is not brought to an end as described in the preceding paragraph, then, when no further amendments are offered in response to the chair’s call for them, the presiding officer immediately proceeds to report ..."

This simply means that instead of by a motion to rise, the proceedings in quasi committee are ended either by the adoption of a motion that is not allowed in a committee of the whole or when no further amendments are offered. It doesn't mean that in the former case all the amendments previously adopted while in quasi committee are vanished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll note that despite all the lack of common sense on my part and other discussion going on, I still haven't seen a single example of where the quasi committee is actually a useful device.

Perhaps I can supply one. I serve as parliamentarian for an organization with a large board (representatives from each state federation as well as national officers) that normally meets only once or twice a year, in person, and which has the power to amend its bylaws. A couple of years ago, through an oversight, notice of some important bylaw amendments was not sent out in sufficient time before a board meeting.

In discussing the situation, it was noted that a committee of the board could certainly debate proposed amendments for the purpose of making recommendations to the board without the amendments having been noticed before the committee meeting; Bylaws Committees do so all the time. Consequently, the lack of notice would be no bar to considering the proposed amendments in committee of the whole; however, the preference was for the assembly's regular presiding officer to preside over the situation, so quasi committee of the whole was preferred.

At the meeting, the board agreed to go into quasi committee of the whole to consider and debate the proposed amendments. After the proposed amendments had been debated and amended, the quasi committee of the whole voted to recommend them, in their amended form, for consideration by the board. That board meeting adjourned without, of course, itself considering the recommended amendments since proper notice had not been given. Thereafter another meeting of the board was called to be conducted by conference call, and the amendments, in the form recommended by the quasi committee, were properly noticed in advance of it. The board during its brief conference call meeting then voted to adopt the amendments as recommended by the quasi committee of the whole with little debate and without further amendment.

The result was that, without the expense and time commitment of holding another in-person board meeting, it was possible to adopt the desired bylaw amendments, while having used the device of quasi committee of the whole to allow thorough consideration of them by all the board members during the regularly scheduled in-person meeting.

It may be of interest to forum participants to know that during deliberations on the current 11th edition of RONR, members of the authorship team briefly considered eliminating coverage of quasi committee of the whole, assuming that it had fallen into desuetude. Much to our surprise, however, an internet search discovered thousands of references to quasi committee of the whole in ordinary assemblies, that is, outside of legislative proceedings. Its use appears to be particularly common in college faculty meetings. In light of that, we decided to retain quasi committee of the whole in the current edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the meeting, the board agreed to go into quasi committee of the whole to consider and debate the proposed amendments. After the proposed amendments had been debated and amended, the quasi committee of the whole voted to recommend them, in their amended form, for consideration by the board. That board meeting adjourned without, of course, itself considering the recommended amendments since proper notice had not been given. Thereafter another meeting of the board was called to be conducted by conference call, and the amendments, in the form recommended by the quasi committee, were properly noticed in advance of it. The board during its brief conference call meeting then voted to adopt the amendments as recommended by the quasi committee of the whole with little debate and without further amendment.

The result was that, without the expense and time commitment of holding another in-person board meeting, it was possible to adopt the desired bylaw amendments, while having used the device of quasi committee of the whole to allow thorough consideration of them by all the board members during the regularly scheduled in-person meeting.

With respect, I'm of the opinion that this was in fact improper, and that a committee of the whole (or a committee whose membership was that of the whole board, if additional flexibility was desired) should have been used instead. In quasi committee, the matter is still before the assembly proper, which is incapable (due to the lack of notice) of considering the amendments.

That said, it's generally a good solution; I just don't think it's a particularly good example in this case :)

It may be of interest to forum participants to know that during deliberations on the current 11th edition of RONR, members of the authorship team briefly considered eliminating coverage of quasi committee of the whole, assuming that it had fallen into desuetude. Much to our surprise, however, an internet search discovered thousands of references to quasi committee of the whole in ordinary assemblies, that is, outside of legislative proceedings. Its use appears to be particularly common in college faculty meetings. In light of that, we decided to retain quasi committee of the whole in the current edition.

Interesting. I've never seen it, and I had a hard time finding instances where it was mentioned that wasn't in some guide to RONR or a reference to the US Senate. Are you still able to point some examples out? If it would be too much work, I can look myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect, I'm of the opinion that this was in fact improper, and that a committee of the whole (or a committee whose membership was that of the whole board, if additional flexibility was desired) should have been used instead. In quasi committee, the matter is still before the assembly proper, which is incapable (due to the lack of notice) of considering the amendments.

With respect, I disagree. When employing quasi committee of the whole, the assembly is acting "as if" in committee of the whole, and the recommendations it adopts are treated by the assembly just as if they had emanated from a committee of the whole or any other committee. That is to say, they are subject to full debate, amendment, and vote (and disposal by other means such as postponement or postpone indefinitely). The assembly's hands are not tied in the way they would have been had the deliberation in quasi committee of the whole taken place in the assembly acting as the assembly -- for example, amendments that raise the same question of content and effect as those dealt with in quasi committee are in order (cf. RONR [11th ed.], p. 139, ll. 25-29).

The requirement of previous notice protects absentees. Id. p. 236, l. 29 to p. 237, l. 5. A board member absent from consideration of the bylaws amendments in quasi committee of the whole who attended the subsequent, post-notice, board meeting, had just as full an opportunity to debate, offer amendments and other motions regarding, and vote on the bylaws amendments as would a board member who had been absent from their consideration in committee of the whole or, for that matter, a Bylaws Committee.

Interesting. I've never seen it, and I had a hard time finding instances where it was mentioned that wasn't in some guide to RONR or a reference to the US Senate. Are you still able to point some examples out? If it would be too much work, I can look myself.

Sure. Just go to Google Advanced Search and type in "quasi committee of the whole". I just did, and got "about 73,500" search results. True, the first few webpages of results are dominated by references that explain the meaning or give the rules governing it, but thereafter you will find thousands of references to web-published minutes and other accounts of specific instances of consideration of matters in quasi committee of the whole in non-legislative assemblies. It just requires the patience to go through page after page after page . . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While actually in the quasi committee, as in Mr. Balch's example, would an adopted motion to suspend the rules and elect a chairman pro-tem for the duration of the quasi committee proceedings immediately end the proceedings (obviously causing the duration of the adopted motion to very brief)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...