Vis Lupi Est Grex

Back to square one on JV 2017?

After yesterday's University Affairs Committee meeting, it's time for the senators to step back, assess the situation, and pick up the pieces. Oh, and figure out just exactly what it is they did last night. I know procedure like the back of my hand, and I'm still not certain about what it is they did last night, and it certainly doesn't help when there are n ideas of what happened, where n equals the number of committee members.

First of all, I congratulate the senators on their resolute stand to take all the time they need to come to a reasoned judgment on this plan. As Sen. Mitch Bottoset said yesterday on The Voicebox on Wolf Pack Radio, this is an 8 year plan, so if it doesn't take effect for another year or two, it'll still be a success. This is a responsible attitude. So kudos to the senators. You made me proud. Also kudos to ASUN President Eli Reilly for realizing that his tact to try to shove this down the senators' throats was probably not the best.

From my notes and watching the meeting (I'll have to wait for the audio recording or video to be posted online for me to double check), my interpretation is one of two things "happened":

1. The Committee indefinitely postponed (killed) further consideration of the JV 2017 plan.
2. The Committee indefinitely postponed a draft resolution regarding JV 2017.

Option two probably was not proper, as the question of approving and reporting to the Senate the draft resolution was never before the committee. (This is why legislation is supposed to be introduced in the Senate first, not originate in committee.) Option one was probably not proper for the same reason. This is all complicated by the fact that Robert's Rules doesn't mesh well with a legislative body such as the Senate (and its committees). (Sorry for all the parentheticals, but I'm trying not to overly complicate this, which is hard because parliamentary procedure is complicated.)

UPDATE: After further review, based on Sen. Brandon Bishop's (erroneous) advice, and perhaps Chairman Teeter's poor planning, the Committee killed a draft resolution believing it was the only thing in front of it. More procedure, but enough. If the senators are interested in figuring out the procedure, they know where to find me.



The problem is committees are often dealing with original measures (stuff originating in committee) and not a tangible, written, already-introduced measure. These original measures haven't been written yet, so the committees deal with something in concept. The practical reality is committees often vote on concepts and direct its chair to draft the legislative language of the actual legislation. It just takes too much time for committees to write the legal text of legislation.

Another thing to keep in mind is parliamentary procedure is relaxed considerably in committees. Motions do not require seconds. Debate is unlimited (limiting debate or moving the previous question is not in order) and chairs can debate and make motions and often do because they drive the committee's business.

Procedurally, a few errors need correcting, and luckily the Senate now seems to be in a position to do just that. When the executive communicates to the legislature, it is typically in writing so that a record of the communication can be preserved in an accessible medium. JV 2017 is such a communication. The executive addresses the item to the legislature, the legislature takes notice of the communication by receiving it and reading it in open meeting (reading usually dispensed with by unanimous consent), and typically refers the communication to the appropriate committee(s) for any further action the committee(s) may deem desirable. This process seems to be misunderstood and is not applied.

The fix: have Eli transmit the plan under a cover letter to the Senate. Under the agenda item for receipt of correspondence, the Speaker notes the receipt of the communication and refers it. The documents referred then become the property of the committee(s). (UPDATE: This is further evidenced by the committee not knowing if it had jurisdiction and custody over the entire document. Not knowing, the committee did the best it could, which was to wait for the Senate to start over and try again.)

When a matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of several committees, the Senate has a couple of options of proceeding. First, it can concurrently refer the matter to the committees of jurisdiction. Each committee would consider the parts of the matter that it has the authority to consider. Budget and Finance would consider budgetary implications of the plan. Government Operations would consider the implementing legislation the plan may require. So on and so forth. Second, referral could be sequential, meaning that it goes to one committee first and if reported back to the Senate, then referred to the next, and so on. Third, the Senate (or the Speaker acting under Rule XI of the Senate's Rules) could create a select committee to consider all matters connected with the proposal. Each method has pros and cons. In any case, the Senate gets to decide this if it wants to; the Senate has only delegated some powers to the Speaker to increase efficiency.

Personally, I really don't know which option is best, and this could be a matter of much debate among the senators. (UPDATE: Given that this took up much of the debate in the committee meeting, the Senate should probably decide this matter.) Some senators may be worried about confusing the public with concurrent or sequential referral. Others may be worried about not getting a diversity of committee views if they create a select committee. Just whatever they do, the Speaker needs to remain mindful of how the Open Meeting Law constrains what they can do based on how their agenda is drafted.

In the meantime, if there is a senator willing to introduce measures (whether the senator agrees or not) to approve of and implement the JV 2017 plan, that would give committees some legislative vehicles to consider and to amend. I've mentioned it before (here), but simply approving of the plan is not enough. The Senate will have to legislate the changes should the Regents approve of the fees.

Sen. Patrick Kealy, in an interview with The Voicebox after the committee meeting, said something very wise: "We need to focus on doing things right instead of doing things fast." Doing things right includes both the substance and the procedure. Botch the procedure, and it won't matter what the substance is. When senators who sit on the committee, literally moments after the committee adjourned, are confused about what they did, that indicates the need to follow the rules and procedure, not to cast them aside.

This proposal might finally give the Senate the opportunity to learn a thing or two about how it was designed to operate. Exciting! Don't be afraid to learn the rules. Once you do, this will become much more palatable experience.

[Updated at 5:01 p.m. to reflect review of video of meeting.]