Procedural Notice: Recording Committee of the Whole

[kevin_standlee]

I have mentioned a few times and in a few places that at this year's Business Meeting, what I call the "technical" discussion of complex proposals such as E Pluribus Hugo (and possibly Popular Ratification) might best be handled by having the meeting go into what is known as "Committee of the Whole." A proponent of the proposal would then hold the floor during the COTW and do a Q&A-style discussion. Such discussions are procedurally more difficult to do in the main debate because of the rules regarding who can speak and how often; however, the two proposals I've named (and possibly others to come) are sufficiently complex that I expect that many members simply want to ask the sponsors of the motions what the proposals mean.

Yes, the proposals include FAQs. Regrettably, many members simply won't read them. My experience last year in London with Popular Ratification was that most of my replies consisted of reading back the commentary included with the proposal. Nevertheless, since lots of people won't read, there is some value in having such a discussion to answer their questions, at least in an abbreviated form, i.e. "The member's question is addressed under Item 7, which I can read if the members want me to do so" or something like that.

While the primary purpose of a COTW is to loosen debate restrictions and to consider proposals in the less-formal style of a committee, there is an additional element that I notice troubles some people. Because a Committee of the Whole is not the assembly itself even though it consists of the same people, in general, minutes are not kept, nor is the COTW recorded in the same way as the meeting itself.

While these arrangements are the defaults for a Committee of the Whole, they can be modified. The motion "To Go Into Committee of the Whole" is a form of the motion to Refer to Committee, and such motions can always contain instructions. Therefore, it would be in order to:

Move to refer the pending question to a Committee of the Whole, with instructions to the Committee as follows:

1. The Committee shall keep minutes of its deliberations and include those minutes in its report.


2. The Committee shall record its deliberations in the same manner as the Business Meeting, and be bound by the same rules thereof.


3. The Committee shall consider the technical aspects of the proposal referred to it, and may include amendments and recommendations regarding the proposal in its report.

This would require the COTW to record its discussions and include minutes as part of its report, as if it were the meeting itself, even though it's technically a committee established by the Business Meeting for procedural purposes.

The Business Meeting Videographer is aware of the prospect of having to record a Committee of the Whole as a separate recording and is technically prepared for doing so. Whether we actually need to do so depends upon how the members who turn up vote to handle the more complex proposals.

Comments

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Would that last clause in part 2, "and be bound by the same rules thereof", destroy the advantage of A COTW by forcing it to use RONR and the Standing Rules in its deliberations? I think you're trying to say that the recording is being bound by the same rules, but the way that the sentence it written, the subject is "the business meeting"

And yeah, I hear you on the not reading bit. I've always only half joked that nobody reads less than a fan. I vividly remember working an info desk, surrounded by signs, and answering every question for two days by never speaking, just pointing at a large sign with the answer, because fans don't read.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

The COTW is bound by RONR; it just has fewer debate restrictions. It's a misreading of the rules to assume that committees have "no rules." The reason for citing the Standing Rules is that the motion to Stop/Start Recording is in the SR and there probably would be someone who claimed that COTW didn't have to follow WSFS standing rules, despite Standing Rule 7.6 specifically addressing all committees, and a COTW is explicitly a Committee so it's covered.

[erikvolson.livejournal.com]

Ahh, "rules" is saying Standing Rules.

Okay, that's clear in Parliamentary Speak (now that I've shifted gears) but you're putting that in to head off those who don't speak it. I know it's coming from the department of redundancy department and you hate that, but perhaps "rules and standing rules thereof"?

Yeah, I know, it's the same thing twice, but remember: Fans don't read. Sometimes you need to hit them with the cluebat repeatedly.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Actually, "rules" unpacks to "all rules of any sort that bind the Business Meeting, including the Standing Rules, Customs & Usages, Constitution, and applicable local law." I see no reason to have to repeat that much level of detail, particularly inasmuch as the people who would have to enforce the motion already know what it means.

[(Anonymous)]

Since I will not be in attendance at Sasquan, I hope that there will be a video recording of COTW, if there is a COTW as seems likely.

--J. Kreitzer

[msconduct.livejournal.com]

Yes, the proposals include FAQs. Regrettably, many members simply won't read them.

How true! One-line email to client today: "DB2 Text Search will only install on WIndows 2003 and 2008." Reply: "Why won't DB2 Text Search install on my [completely different product]?" Sigh. It must be frustrating to provide information on these complicated procedural questions, only to have it consistently blithely ignored. Hard to know what to do about it other than give an exam at the door.

[glenn-glazer.livejournal.com]

Regrettably, perhaps, but also understandably. There's a lot of material out there to read, especially if one wants an informed sense of not just the proposal, but the debates around it. Remember that this comes at a time when many of the same people are trying to get their Hugo reading done, have day jobs and so on.

[pcmcmurray.livejournal.com]

Haven't we done this before? I have vague memories of minuting such an event.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Yes, we went into COTW at the Nippon 2007 business meeting. In that case, we didn't record the COTW because it wasn't requested. There's a slide in the recording of the meeting that explains it.

As it happens, that meeting was so small that we could have used one of the alternative forms like quasi-COTW; however, this year's meeting is likely to break all attendance records, and RONR recommends the full-blown COTW for larger assemblies.