Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Uses of Committee of the Whole


Setemu

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, J. J. said:

No.  Informal Discussion would apply to a pending motion. 

I was under the impression that after reviewing the text in the book and the various comments above, that the consensus was that any on the three forms of committees could sustain a subject-only referral. Are you saying that a subject-only referral to a Committee of the Whole or a Quasi Committee of the Whole is acceptable but not Informal Consideration, or did I read too much into you response?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I was under the impression that after reviewing the text in the book and the various comments above, that the consensus was that any on the three forms of committees could sustain a subject-only referral. Are you saying that a subject-only referral to a Committee of the Whole or a Quasi Committee of the Whole is acceptable but not Informal Consideration, or did I read too much into you response?

I think this is exactly what J. J. is suggesting and I agree completely. I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

“The "informal" aspect of the consideration applies only to the number of speeches allowed in debate on the main question and its amendments; all votes are formal, and any other motion that is made is under the regular rules of debate. In contrast to the case of a committee of the whole or quasi committee of the whole, the proceedings under informal consideration are recorded in the assembly's minutes, just as they would be if the consideration were formal. While considering a question informally the assembly can, by a two-thirds vote, limit the number or length of speeches, or in any other way limit or close debate. As soon as the main question is disposed of, temporarily or permanently, the informal consideration automatically ceases without any motion or vote.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 541)

This description suggests to me that a motion for informal consideration is not in order while no motion is pending. I think it is still in order for the assembly to simply permit an open discussion on a topic, but this is not informal consideration in the sense that term is used in Section 52 of RONR.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think this is exactly what J. J. is suggesting and I agree completely. I apologize if I suggested otherwise.

“The "informal" aspect of the consideration applies only to the number of speeches allowed in debate on the main question and its amendments; all votes are formal, and any other motion that is made is under the regular rules of debate. In contrast to the case of a committee of the whole or quasi committee of the whole, the proceedings under informal consideration are recorded in the assembly's minutes, just as they would be if the consideration were formal. While considering a question informally the assembly can, by a two-thirds vote, limit the number or length of speeches, or in any other way limit or close debate. As soon as the main question is disposed of, temporarily or permanently, the informal consideration automatically ceases without any motion or vote.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 541)

This description suggests to me that a motion for informal consideration is not in order while no motion is pending. I think it is still in order for the assembly to simply permit an open discussion on a topic, but this is not informal consideration in the sense that term is used in Section 52 of RONR.

That is exactly what I was referring to in my answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it sounds to me that, generally, as they are described in RONR, 1) Good of the Order is intended for brief informal observations and comments, but that using this as a format for subject-only informal discussion is not precluded by the rules; 2) Committee of the Whole is generally intended as a device for the consideration of a question being handled in the assembly that might be better suited to be handled in conditions approximating a committee, but that using this format for subject-only informal discussion is not precluded by the rules; 3) and considering the aforementioned and that RONR does not anticipate a large assembly wanting to have regular subject-only informal discussions, both Good of the Order and Committee of the Whole options are available to the assembly for subject-only informal discussion, with RONR giving no specific preference to either, and that how to best proceed on such a matter in a given situation is ultimately up to the assembly. Correct?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2018 at 10:37 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Couldn't it just be moved for informal discussion?

In my particular case, even with a pending motion, it would not seem to be advised because I am working with a large assembly, and RONR specifically states that (a) committee of the whole is suited for large assemblies and (b) informal consideration is suited for small assemblies (p. 530, V. 33).  This does make me wonder, though, for parallelism, that if a pending pending motion is required for informal consideration that it must also be required for committee of the whole, as these appear to be three devices (committee of the whole, quasi-committee of the whole, and informal consideration) that operate under the same assumptions regarding the parliamentary situation to which they are intended, except that each has slightly different modifications for the rules regarding the conduct during the use of the device depending on size (and not necessarily what is happening in the assembly when the device is moved, i.e. whether or not there is a pending motion).

Edited by Setemu
strike and insert
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Setemu said:

with RONR giving no specific preference to either, and that how to best proceed on such a matter in a given situation is ultimately up to the assembly. Correct?

I disagree that RONR has no specific preference to either. As discussed earlier, RONR specifically states that Committee of the Whole can be used for exactly this purpose, while it is not contemplated as part of Good of the Order.

You are correct that, despite the preference for one method, the decision on how best to proceed is ultimately up to the assembly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Setemu said:

... that if a pending pending motion is required for informal consideration that it must also be required for committee of the whole, as these appear to be three devices (committee of the whole, quasi-committee of the whole, and informal consideration) that operate under the same assumptions regarding the parliamentary situation to which they are intended, ...

Yeah, that was my impression for the very same reason. However, our experts have reminded us of the fact that the motion to Commit can also be either a main motion or an incidental main motion, in which case they can assign a task to the CotW and the QCotW via a subject-only motion. I love any novel way of using the motions. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Yeah, that was my impression for the very same reason. However, our experts have reminded us of the fact that the motion to Commit can also be either a main motion or an incidental main motion, in which case they can assign a task to the CotW and the QCotW via a subject-only motion. I love any novel way of using the motions. B)

Wait...the main motion used to Commit would be the motion to Commit itself? I think my head just exploded. :-)  It seems to me odd that RONR would intend to allow this maneuver for an assembly of 200 people while at the same time precluding it for a small group of 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Setemu said:

Wait...the main motion used to Commit would be the motion to Commit itself? I think my head just exploded. :-)  It seems to me odd that RONR would intend to allow this maneuver for an assembly of 200 people while at the same time precluding it for a small group of 10.

It is patterned on a body of 435 members using it, the USA House. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setemu said:

Wait...the main motion used to Commit would be the motion to Commit itself? I think my head just exploded. :-)  It seems to me odd that RONR would intend to allow this maneuver for an assembly of 200 people while at the same time precluding it for a small group of 10.

It’s not really that odd at all. A small group of ten might simply adopt the small board rules, in which event the group can have discussion with no motion pending in any event (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16). Additionally, it seems to me that the rules in RONR do not actually preclude the use of Committee of the Whole in smaller assemblies, it merely notes that its use is more common in larger assemblies.

6 hours ago, Setemu said:

So, it sounds to me that, generally, as they are described in RONR, 1) Good of the Order is intended for brief informal observations and comments, but that using this as a format for subject-only informal discussion is not precluded by the rules; 2) Committee of the Whole is generally intended as a device for the consideration of a question being handled in the assembly that might be better suited to be handled in conditions approximating a committee, but that using this format for subject-only informal discussion is not precluded by the rules; 3) and considering the aforementioned and that RONR does not anticipate a large assembly wanting to have regular subject-only informal discussions, both Good of the Order and Committee of the Whole options are available to the assembly for subject-only informal discussion, with RONR giving no specific preference to either, and that how to best proceed on such a matter in a given situation is ultimately up to the assembly. Correct?

No, I think RONR does give preference toward Committee of the Whole. I would also note that Good of the Order is generally not limited to a single topic, so there’s that.

My personal preference is that if an assembly of over 100 members regularly wants to have discussion with no motion pending, it adopt appropriate special rules of order for this purpose, but in the absence of such rules, Committee of the Whole seems like the best option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

It is patterned on a body of 435 members using it, the USA House. 

I don't know much about that history or about the House rules, but a quick peek at the US House's Office of the Clerk led me to this description of the Committee of the Whole: "The House resolves itself into a new Committee of the Whole for the consideration of a bill" (emphasis added). That description is consistent with the NP article you referred me to, JJ, which uses as an example a pending potential action of the assembly that is referred to Committee of the Whole.

 

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It’s not really that odd at all. A small group of ten might simply adopt the small board rules, in which event the group can have discussion with no motion pending in any event (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16). Additionally, it seems to me that the rules in RONR do not actually preclude the use of Committee of the Whole in smaller assemblies, it merely notes that its use is more common in larger assemblies.

That's a point I hadn't thought of, although in such a case is seems to me the question of whether to consider a question informally, as one of the devices described on p. 530, isn't a question at all any more given informal consideration is always already allowed in a small board (a motion to consider a question informally wouldn't make sense in a small board...would it?). 

If I understand your second point, then, if a small assembly wished to have what we have been calling a "subject-only" discussion, which they could not do by informal consideration (which requires a pending main motion), they would move into committee of the whole to have the subject-only discussion. Generally speaking, although RONR states that each of the devices on p. 530 is "best suited" for a particular size of assembly, nothing in RONR precludes any assembly of any size from using any or all of those three devices in a given meeting. Right? 

 

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, I think RONR does give preference toward Committee of the Whole. I would also note that Good of the Order is generally not limited to a single topic, so there’s that.

There is that, indeed, and I agree it is an important fact to consider if an assembly, including mine, wishes to use Good of the Order for such purposes.

 

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

My personal preference is that if an assembly of over 100 members regularly wants to have discussion with no motion pending, it adopt appropriate special rules of order for this purpose, but in the absence of such rules, Committee of the Whole seems like the best option.

I understand your reasoning, Mr. Martin, and I will keep it in mind when I encounter this situation again. Also, let me say again I very much I appreciate the time you and others have provided in helping me think through this. I am a novice at this, and I am also deeply interested the logic and intent behind the rules, specifically and generally, so I can learn to best interpret the text in cases where the text's guidance is not explicit, and this conversation has helped me understand some of nuances of the text that were not readily apparent to me (maybe an official opinion is in order--pun intended--as an easy reference for us newbies?). First round is on me if I ever make an NAP conference and bump into any of you all. :-)

Edited by Setemu
editing error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Setemu said:

That's a point I hadn't thought of, although in such a case is seems to me the question of whether to consider a question informally, as one of the devices described on p. 530, isn't a question at all any more given informal consideration is always already allowed in a small board (a motion to consider a question informally wouldn't make sense in a small board...would it?). 

Correct, a motion for informal consideration makes no sense in an assembly using the small board rules. The effect of informal consideration is to remove the limitations on the number of times members may speak on the main motion and amendments to the main motion. In small board rules, there are already no such limitations.

Informal consideration appears intended to be used in an assembly with less than about fifty members (the low end for quasi-committee of the whole) and more than about a dozen members (the high end for the small board rules). It is also conceivable, however, that an assembly with not more than about a dozen members may nonetheless decide not to use the small board rules, and those assemblies could also benefit from the motion.

14 hours ago, Setemu said:

If I understand your second point, then, if a small assembly wished to have what we have been calling a "subject-only" discussion, which they could not do by informal consideration (which requires a pending main motion), they would move into committee of the whole to have the subject-only discussion. Generally speaking, although RONR states that each of the devices on p. 530 is "best suited" for a particular size of assembly, nothing in RONR precludes any assembly of any size from using any or all of those three devices in a given meeting. Right? 

Yes, the use of Committee of the Whole is not precluded in smaller assemblies. Quasi-Committee of the Whole would also work, or simply a motion for an open discussion as I alluded to earlier (this may be more workable in a smaller assembly), or a motion to Recess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This assembly does not have a practice of placing planned motions in the agenda. Is a Committee of the Whole something that can be planned for such that it may placed on the agenda, not as a motion but in the same way as a recesss or report? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest Guest Setemu said:

This assembly does not have a practice of placing planned motions in the agenda. Is a Committee of the Whole something that can be planned for such that it may placed on the agenda, not as a motion but in the same way as a recesss or report? 

I see no reason why not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I see no reason why not.

I just wasn’t sure whether it could be treated as an agenda item if, as a rule, the standard order of business is followed and planned motions aren’t placed on the agenda. For example, if it is placed in Reports in the draft agenda, if desired, because a subject in the report would be discussed in COTW, even though COTW is not, itself, a report. I didn’t know if that was allowable. It’s a peculiar device to me, this COTW. Thanks for your answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Guest Setemu said:

I just wasn’t sure whether it could be treated as an agenda item if, as a rule, the standard order of business is followed and planned motions aren’t placed on the agenda. For example, if it is placed in Reports in the draft agenda, if desired, because a subject in the report would be discussed in COTW, even though COTW is not, itself, a report. I didn’t know if that was allowable. It’s a peculiar device to me, this COTW. Thanks for your answer. 

I do not think there is anything improper about having COTW as an order of the day for the report in question. Indeed, this would seem to be the preferred course of action, in the same way that a motion to implement a recommendation in the report would be made at that time.

The fact that the society has not placed specific orders of the day on its agenda in the past is no reason it cannot so in the future (although it must be remembered that such an agenda must be approved by the assembly).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I do not think there is anything improper about having COTW as an order of the day for the report in question. Indeed, this would seem to be the preferred course of action, in the same way that a motion to implement a recommendation in the report would be made at that time.

The fact that the society has not placed specific orders of the day on its agenda in the past is no reason it cannot so in the future (although it must be remembered that such an agenda must be approved by the assembly).

I agree.  One advantage to scheduling it may be to explain the process to the assembly in preparation. 

Link to comment
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...