Quasi committee of the whole

[Shmuel Gerber]

My question was not directed to Mr. Balch directly, though I considered the fact it wasn't answered because it was either stupid, or no one noticed it.

Now, now. Don't be so hard on yourself. It might have been a little of both.

[Tim Wynn]

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.

Consider that the assembly can certainly adopt an incidental main motion "to refer the proposed bylaw amendment to a committee," without any need for notice. And once this motion is adopted, the next question the chair will ask, in completing the incomplete motion to commit is . . . To what committee shall the question be referred?

It seems to me that quasi committee of the whole is a legitimate proposal, because the "amendments" that the committee can adopt, which are effectively recommendations, do not represent a decision of the assembly, as evidenced by the fact that these amendments would have to be separately adopted by the assembly.

When the quasi committee has no further amendments, the presiding officer reports to the assembly, and no action can be taken on the matter at that time, since required notice was not given.

In any event, I imagine it would be pretty difficult to convince this group that the work they did was dilatory, even if they had done it in the assembly, itself.

[Tim Wynn]

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)?

It seems that it 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 subject be referred to quasi committee of the whole with ___________ to preside over the quasi committee of the whole.

This was knocked off from p. 539, ll. 18-25

[Gary Novosielski]

members of the authorship team briefly considered eliminating coverage of quasi committee of the whole, assuming that it had fallen into desuetude.

 

Not for nuthin', but I think desuetude has fallen farther down that hole than QCotW has.

[Dan Honemann]

Not for nuthin', but I think desuetude has fallen farther down that hole than QCotW has.

 

Don't know about the other guys, but I just thought that quasi committee of the whole wasn't used much anymore.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, now you see what comes of thinkin'.

[Guest paul]

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:

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.

small boards and committee of the whole and quasi used to have the benefits of full and free debate, where boards wanted every voting member to be able to speak in debate at least once. Note that the asterisk has taken this away from small boards by imposing previous question. Is this also the future change for "whole" and "quasi".

RONR speaks of debate  being a fundamental right, then describes ways of suppressing. Why should 2/3 be able to limit a voting members right to debate?

[Josh Martin]

small boards and committee of the whole and quasi used to have the benefits of full and free debate, where boards wanted every voting member to be able to speak in debate at least once. Note that the asterisk has taken this away from small boards by imposing previous question. 

 

In committees (including committee of the whole and quasi committee of the whole) and in small boards, there is still "full and free debate" in the sense that members can speak any number of times. The Previous Question is (and always has been) in order at any time in small boards, but not in committees (including committee of the whole and quasi-committee of the whole).

 

Is this also the future change for "whole" and "quasi".

 

It's highly unlikely that the rules will change so that the Previous Question is in order in committees of any kind.

 

RONR speaks of debate  being a fundamental right, then describes ways of suppressing. Why should 2/3 be able to limit a voting members right to debate?

 

"As a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly, the principle has been established that a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that: (a) suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; ( b ) prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; ( c ) closes, limits, or extends the limits of debate; (d) closes nominations or the polls, or otherwise limits the freedom of nominating or voting; or (e) takes away membership. (For a list of motions that require a two-thirds vote, see tinted pp. 44–45.)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 401)

[Guest paul]

In committees (including committee of the whole and quasi committee of the whole) and in small boards, there is still "full and free debate" in the sense that members can speak any number of times. The Previous Question is (and always has been) in order at any time in small boards, but not in committees (including committee of the whole and quasi-committee of the whole).

 

 

It's highly unlikely that the rules will change so that the Previous Question is in order in committees of any kind.

 

 

"As a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly, the principle has been established that a two-thirds vote is required to adopt any motion that: (a) suspends or modifies a rule of order previously adopted; ( b ) prevents the introduction of a question for consideration; ( c ) closes, limits, or extends the limits of debate; (d) closes nominations or the polls, or otherwise limits the freedom of nominating or voting; or (e) takes away membership. (For a list of motions that require a two-thirds vote, see tinted pp. 44–45.)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 401)

Previous Question and limits on debate were not part of Small Boards (p. 470 in 10) and 11 added the asterisk (p. 488).

Also see pages 3, 251, 264, describing fundamental rights (to debate). There is a disconnect between full and free debate and allowing suppression of 1/3 voting members of a Board even if it is 2/3. Other fundamental rights cannot be suspended even by unanimous vote or at least unanimous vote. This should be made clear in RONR. 

Pre 11 treated small boards and committees similarly in that full and free debate would not be interupted by previous questions. Can we assume that previous question cannot be used in committees?  but can be used in small boards now? Thanks, Paul

[Josh Martin]

Previous Question and limits on debate were not part of Small Boards (p. 470 in 10) and 11 added the asterisk (p. 488).

 

Previous Question and Limit Debate were in order in small boards under the 10th edition. The material in the 11th edition on this subject is a clarification, not a change. While situations where these motions are in order may arise less frequently than in larger assemblies, these motions are (and always have been) in order in small boards in RONR.

 

Also see pages 3, 251, 264, describing fundamental rights (to debate). There is a disconnect between full and free debate and allowing suppression of 1/3 voting members of a Board even if it is 2/3. Other fundamental rights cannot be suspended even by unanimous vote or at least unanimous vote. This should be made clear in RONR. 

 

A member's individual right to speak in debate cannot be suspended except through disciplinary proceedings. The assembly cannot, for instance, adopt a motion "That John Smith shall not speak in debate for the remainder of this meeting," unless, of course, this is in connection with appropriate disciplinary procedures (see Ch. XX).

 

The assembly may, however, limit or end the rights of all members to debate. As noted above, this requires a 2/3 vote as a compromise between the rights of the individual and the rights of the assembly.

 

Pre 11 treated small boards and committees similarly in that full and free debate would not be interupted by previous questions. Can we assume that previous question cannot be used in committees?  but can be used in small boards now?

 

The Previous Question is in order in small boards but not in committees. This is not a new rule.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The Previous Question is in order in small boards but not in committees. This is not a new rule.

 

Strictly speaking, the Previous Question was not "out of order" in small board meetings under previous editions of RONR, but I think there was indeed a change when the rule went from "motions to close or limit debate generally should not be entertained" (10th ed., p. 470) to "motions to close or limit debate, including motions to limit the number of times a member can speak to a question, are in order even in meetings of a small board (but not in meetings of a committee; see p. 500), although occasions where they are necessary or appropriate may be rarer than in larger assemblies" (11th ed., p. 488n).

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't think there's a huge disparity between generally not entertained and rarely necessary or appropriate but the replacing of should with may be seems to open the door wider in the 11th edition.

[Josh Martin]

Strictly speaking, the Previous Question was not "out of order" in small board meetings under previous editions of RONR, but I think there was indeed a change when the rule went from "motions to close or limit debate generally should not be entertained" (10th ed., p. 470) to "motions to close or limit debate, including motions to limit the number of times a member can speak to a question, are in order even in meetings of a small board (but not in meetings of a committee; see p. 500), although occasions where they are necessary or appropriate may be rarer than in larger assemblies" (11th ed., p. 488n).

 

I had thought it was just a clarification, but perhaps I am wrong. How exactly should (or could) the chair of a small board have handled a motion for the Previous Question under the rules in the 10th edition?

[Guest Edgar]

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.

 

Not for nuthin', but I think desuetude has fallen farther down that hole than QCotW has.

 

Is this thread really worthy of resurrection after more than a year based on the use of "desuetude"?

[Guest paul]

I had thought it was just a clarification, but perhaps I am wrong. How exactly should (or could) the chair of a small board have handled a motion for the Previous Question under the rules in the 10th edition?

My experience prior to the asterisk in 11 was that previous question would not be used. p 470 of 10, lines 28 to 30. This did not require clarification. Why the change? There is enough suppression of debate by the 2/3 rule. It should not be changed for small boards or committees.

I would like to have a thread on Previous Question and Fundamental Rights. The terminology in RONR is conflicting and ambiguous. Paul

[Shmuel Gerber]

I had thought it was just a clarification, but perhaps I am wrong. How exactly should (or could) the chair of a small board have handled a motion for the Previous Question under the rules in the 10th edition?

 

Beats me. Part of the benefit of changing the rule was that we wouldn't have to answer that question anymore.

I'll take a stab at it, though. I assume the chair should say something like, "We don't generally entertain motions for the Previous Question at meetings of this board." And then the member might accept that. Or the member might say, "But we generally don't debate a question for more than 15 minutes, and we've been stuck on this one for three hours, and I move the Previous Question!" And then you might hear nothing but the sound of the chirping of crickets and the tumbling of tumbleweeds in the background as the other members sit in shock at the idea of formally taking a vote on closing debate when it hasn't been done in living memory; or, on the other hand, those sounds might be drowned out by shouts of "Question! Question!"

And then, once the shock has worn off or the tumult has died down, cooler heads will gratefully point out that it's a good thing the board now ought to actually be making use of the rules in the 11th edition, which the 10th edition doesn't specifically say should be used when it becomes available, but which I think is fairly implied by the tradition of the note on page ii (and indeed affirmed by page vii in the 11th edition).

[Josh Martin]

My experience prior to the asterisk in 11 was that previous question would not be used. p 470 of 10, lines 28 to 30. This did not require clarification. Why the change? There is enough suppression of debate by the 2/3 rule. It should not be changed for small boards or committees.

 

As noted, the 10th edition stated that the Previous Question generally should not be entertained. This seems to suggest that there were some circumstances in which it should be entertained, and some in which it should not, but the text provided no guidance on what these circumstances were. So I think the clarification was quite welcome.

 

I would like to have a thread on Previous Question and Fundamental Rights. The terminology in RONR is conflicting and ambiguous.

 

I don't think there's anything "conflicting and ambiguous" about it, but you're welcome to post a new thread with your questions on those subjects if you wish.