Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest Don

Chairman of Joint Standing Committee

Recommended Posts

Guest Don

Recently a Chairman of a Joint Standing Committee in State Legislature Stated in Worksession of a Bill during the discussion of the Bill or Act what he would Support or not Support while in Chairman Position. During the same Discussion when a motion was made and he called for a second, three times without anyone rising to make a second on the Motion so the Chair made and was recorded as making the Second on the motion. All this was done as the Chair did not relinquish his position of a 13 member Joint Standing Committee. I felt one he should not state what he would support or two he should not be making or making a second on a motion from position as chairpman running the Committee Worksession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typically, state legislatures have rules at variance with RONR (for good reasons).

RONR doesn't have any for a "Joint Standing Committee in State Legislature" as such; do you?

RONR's rules do not require seconds at all in "small committees" -- 13 might just get in under the wire as "small", p. 487 & 500. And in such "small committees" the chairman is a full participant.

What you "feel" has no bearing - go check the rules, if you have any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RONR's rules do not require seconds at all in "small committees" -- 13 might just get in under the wire as "small", p. 487 & 500. And in such "small committees" the chairman is a full participant.

Well, RONR now provides that "small board rules" are applicable during the meetings of all standing and special committees, unless otherwise instructed by the society (RONR, 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 9-13; p. 501. ll. 2-6).

Edited by Dan Honemann
Added the cite to p. 501

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working the old fashioned way, looking at/re-reading the 10th and 11th in parallel and spotting more (many minor, to be sure) changes than are in the published list. (And one typo, so far.)

Next I'll look at the list to see what I missed.

Then look at my set of complaints to the A-Team (saved over the past eleven tears) to see what THEY missed.

And finally, start my new complaint list...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working the old fashioned way, looking at/re-reading the 10th and 11th in parallel and spotting more (many minor, to be sure) changes than are in the published list. (And one typo, so far.)

Next I'll look at the list to see what I missed.

Then look at my set of complaints to the A-Team (saved over the past eleven tears) to see what THEY missed.

And finally, start my new complaint list...

What typo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typo (or perhaps a style/English usage fixup): p. 89, line 17, there should be a comma after "specified".

Also in the index, p. 674, the first page reference for

<ballot | "for" and "against" >

should be to p. 414. (This might be considered an "error" rather than a "typo".) The p. 430 reference is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am working the old fashioned way, looking at/re-reading the 10th and 11th in parallel and spotting more (many minor, to be sure) changes than are in the published list. (And one typo, so far.)

Next I'll look at the list to see what I missed.

Then look at my set of complaints to the A-Team (saved over the past eleven tears) to see what THEY missed.

And finally, start my new complaint list...

Past eleven tears, no need to cry about it; or, is this a typo about the typo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently a Chairman of a Joint Standing Committee in State Legislature Stated in Worksession of a Bill during the discussion of the Bill or Act what he would Support or not Support while in Chairman Position. During the same Discussion when a motion was made and he called for a second, three times without anyone rising to make a second on the Motion so the Chair made and was recorded as making the Second on the motion. All this was done as the Chair did not relinquish his position of a 13 member Joint Standing Committee. I felt one he should not state what he would support or two he should not be making or making a second on a motion from position as chairpman running the Committee Worksession.

So far as RONR is concerned, committees operate under less formal rules unless otherwise ordered by the parent assembly. The rules which are relevant to this case are that in committees, the chairman is free to speak in debate and make motions while presiding and that seconds are not required.

I doubt this answer will be of much use to you, however, since this is a committee of a state legislature. Most state legislatures do not use RONR as their parliamentary authority, and legislative assemblies frequently have extensive special rules of order, so what RONR has to say on the subject is unlikely to be helpful even if the state legislature does use RONR as its authority. I suggest you look to the rules of the legislature for answers to your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typo (or perhaps a style/English usage fixup): p. 89, line 17, there should be a comma after "specified".

Believe it or not, this was a question the authorship team specifically decided. We advisedly chose not to have a comma in that spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typo (or perhaps a style/English usage fixup): p. 89, line 17, there should be a comma after "specified".

Also in the index, p. 674, the first page reference for

<ballot | "for" and "against" >

should be to p. 414. (This might be considered an "error" rather than a "typo".) The p. 430 reference is correct.

As to the comma on page 89, although I do not actually recall our having discussed its omission (which doesn't surprise me, since I usually left things of this nature to our resident experts, Henry and Shmuel, to decide while I went for some coffee or something), I do think that the sentence reads better without it.

Compiling an index is the last thing in the world I want to have anything at all to do with, but I agree with you that there does appear to be something strange about the references to "for" and "against" ballots. It seems to me that a reference to page 413 is appropriate, since there is an example on that page of the proper use of such a ballot, but references to pages 414 and 430 are appropriate as well. Why it is that only pages 413 and 430 are referenced on page 674 of the index, and then on page 675 there is another entry for “for” or “against” ballots referencing only page 414, escapes me altogether. However, I think I’ll stick to worrying about the substance of what is said in the text of RONR, and leave the blooming index to others. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, I'll bet, all of the other readers, I have added handwritten index entries of my own after dilligent search for a mystery reference.

[Notice the paired commas setting off the subordinate clause, unlike what is found on p. 89.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...