Wow, two parli-pro rants in as many days. How fun.
So, the Wisconsin Assembly held a vote on the now controversial budget repair bill that includes the provisions that strip the public unions of their collective bargaining rights.
My understanding of things is that the following chain of events occurred. Refer to the Talking Points Memo post on the story. Link here.
First the Assembly held a voice vote to put the bill to a roll call vote while the Democrats were still debating the matter. The vote was sustained by a majority vote.
Second, the Assembly held the roll call vote until it got 51 votes in favor of the bill, then adjourned the meeting before all of the Assembly was able to cast their roll call votes.
This is problematic.
First the matter of cutting off debate.
The rules for ending debate in the Wisconsin State Assembly are pretty clear.
To cut off debate, it is understood that this is supposed to be done formally with a vote, and a recorded roll call vote at that.
Now that is the Assembly's own rules. Which they didn't follow. A voice vote ain't a roll call vote.
But that's okay, because the Assembly can suspend its own rules, including this one.
Oh, that requires a roll call vote too, and a two thirds vote at that... the record makes no mention of that. So, oops.
So that is a blunder... and a big one. One of the basic rights of membership in any deliberative body, particularly in a legislature, is the right to participate in debate. The right to speak for or against something that is to be put to a vote. It is one of the few firm rights that a single dissenting member has in any organization, and it must never be cut off lightly.
Blunder number two was to stop recording roll call votes as soon as they got the 51 votes they needed to pass the bill in the Assembly.
This is also problematic.
Take a look at the definition of a roll-call vote, as defined by the Assembly's own rules...
That's each member voting, by the way... not "A vote on which each member voting in the majority is recorded by name."
Every vote is supposed to be recorded in a roll call vote. Those members whose votes were not recorded will be assumed to have abstained from voting on the bill.
This is not a trifling matter.
Contrary to widely held opinion, there is a difference between a vote of No and an abstention. An abstention is distinguished from a no vote in at least two respects. First, it means "I trust the will of the majority" so it lacks the force of a protest vote. And Second, and more procedurally significant, a person who doesn't vote Yes or No can't make a motion to reconsider. An abstention, or no recorded vote, literally means that the member didn't vote at all and took no position on a matter and that member can't reconsider an action in which that member took no active roll.
These distinctions are subtle, but significant nonetheless.
My parting shot here is that the actions of the Wisconsin State Assembly were taken in apparent violation of fundamental principles of parlimentary law. In specific, the actions were taken in violation of the rights of the minority and the individual, in terms of cutting off debate and in terms of the basic right to participate in a vote (even the losing end of a vote.)
Any action taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law is known as a "breach of order of a continuing nature." And those actions are legally null and void.
Means legally, they didn't happen.
Whoever it was that was running that meeting did a shabby job of serving as presiding officer.
So, the Wisconsin Assembly held a vote on the now controversial budget repair bill that includes the provisions that strip the public unions of their collective bargaining rights.
My understanding of things is that the following chain of events occurred. Refer to the Talking Points Memo post on the story. Link here.
First the Assembly held a voice vote to put the bill to a roll call vote while the Democrats were still debating the matter. The vote was sustained by a majority vote.
Second, the Assembly held the roll call vote until it got 51 votes in favor of the bill, then adjourned the meeting before all of the Assembly was able to cast their roll call votes.
This is problematic.
First the matter of cutting off debate.
The rules for ending debate in the Wisconsin State Assembly are pretty clear.
Assembly Rule 71. Ending debate.
...
(1) When a proposal is under consideration, any member who obtains the floor may move that debate on the proposal be ended. Any such motion shall be seconded by at least 15 members, may not be debated, and is decided by a roll call vote.
To cut off debate, it is understood that this is supposed to be done formally with a vote, and a recorded roll call vote at that.
Now that is the Assembly's own rules. Which they didn't follow. A voice vote ain't a roll call vote.
But that's okay, because the Assembly can suspend its own rules, including this one.
Assembly Rule 90. Suspension of the rules.
...
(1) Any assembly or joint rule may be suspended by the unanimous consent of the members present or by a two-thirds roll call vote of the members present.
Oh, that requires a roll call vote too, and a two thirds vote at that... the record makes no mention of that. So, oops.
So that is a blunder... and a big one. One of the basic rights of membership in any deliberative body, particularly in a legislature, is the right to participate in debate. The right to speak for or against something that is to be put to a vote. It is one of the few firm rights that a single dissenting member has in any organization, and it must never be cut off lightly.
Blunder number two was to stop recording roll call votes as soon as they got the 51 votes they needed to pass the bill in the Assembly.
This is also problematic.
Take a look at the definition of a roll-call vote, as defined by the Assembly's own rules...
Assembly Rule 95 [Definitions]
(74) Roll call vote: A vote on which each member voting is recorded by name.
That's each member voting, by the way... not "A vote on which each member voting in the majority is recorded by name."
Every vote is supposed to be recorded in a roll call vote. Those members whose votes were not recorded will be assumed to have abstained from voting on the bill.
This is not a trifling matter.
Contrary to widely held opinion, there is a difference between a vote of No and an abstention. An abstention is distinguished from a no vote in at least two respects. First, it means "I trust the will of the majority" so it lacks the force of a protest vote. And Second, and more procedurally significant, a person who doesn't vote Yes or No can't make a motion to reconsider. An abstention, or no recorded vote, literally means that the member didn't vote at all and took no position on a matter and that member can't reconsider an action in which that member took no active roll.
These distinctions are subtle, but significant nonetheless.
My parting shot here is that the actions of the Wisconsin State Assembly were taken in apparent violation of fundamental principles of parlimentary law. In specific, the actions were taken in violation of the rights of the minority and the individual, in terms of cutting off debate and in terms of the basic right to participate in a vote (even the losing end of a vote.)
Any action taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law is known as a "breach of order of a continuing nature." And those actions are legally null and void.
Means legally, they didn't happen.
Whoever it was that was running that meeting did a shabby job of serving as presiding officer.
The probelem Wisconsin faces is the majority in power including the governor do not understand good governance nor do the care. The bill in question has lots of other terrible thinngs like selling off power plants without bid solicitation.
ReplyDelete