As some of you may know... I have a peculiar interest in parliamentary procedure. I have made many a parli-pro rant on this blog. This is one of those rants.
This is my first parli-pro rant involving Doug Ericksen. So fasten your safety belts and bring your seats to their upright positions.
I was made privy to this by Riley Sweeney in this article on the Political Junkie. LINK.
The link below documents a portion of a State Senate committee meeting, in which the Chair (Doug Ericksen) crapped all over Ranker's rights as a committee member. [The video is just over a minute.]
http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013021237#start=2831&stop=2893
My understanding is that the Washington State Senate operates under Reed's parliamentary rules, a parliamentary authority with which I am not familiar.
Nonetheless, the conduct by Doug Ericksen in this video appears to be a "breach of order of a continuing nature"... which is parli-pro parlance for "a real dick move".
 |
| Artist Interpretation of Doug Ericksen Chairing a Meeting... bringing the meeting to order by saying "Is not this... simpler...?" |
No matter what published set of parliamentary rules a body may have adopted, "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" are established in a body of case law going back to the original Parliament of England, (which was established in 1215, so there is a large body of case law here) and these principles are not dependent on any single published parliamentary authority, and no published parliamentary authority can change those principles.
One of the fundamental principles of parliamentary law is the right of an individual member to see rules followed properly. Senator Ranker's right to make a motion and have it disposed of properly according to adopted rules is not a right that any Chair can take away, suspend, or ignore.
Apparently, it is too late to do anything by virtue of the fact that a deadline has passed... so even the "continuing nature" of this breach eludes a remedy.
A few points to ponder, however...
Ranker's bill was moved and seconded and was not disposed of in any manner that is even in the same quadrant of the galaxy as proper. There was no vote on the bill one way or the other. And that is not sufficient to kill a motion.
Until a motion is killed by a secondary motion (like a motion to Postpone Indefinitely), voted down directly, or otherwise properly disposed of... that motion is probably not dead. Even without ever having laid eyes on a copy of Reed's, I can confidently claim that the Chair has no unilateral authority to prevent a seconded motion from being considered, nor does a Chair have the unilateral authority to adjourn a meeting. Senator Ericksen's desire to play Hallucinatory Whack-A-Mole with his gavel notwithstanding.
Did anyone other than me notice that the motion to adjourn was not put to a vote?
The motion to adjourn is a simple motion.
It is also a high ranking motion.
It was in order for the Chair (Ericksen) to take up the motion to Adjourn even though Ranker's bill was still moved and seconded.
And if Ericksen had bothered to exercise some composure and mindfulness, he would have taken a vote to adjourn the meeting... and if the vote passed... then at least he would have looked like someone who has a clue about how parliamentary procedure works.
To be clear, the Chair has the authority to rule something "out of order". More to the point, it is the Chair's job to make such rulings. But the membership has the right to appeal those rulings. This is one of the least understood facts of parli-pro. The Chair is not the boss over the committee. The Committee is the boss over the Chair.
In committees as small as the one seen in the video, motions don't generally require a second. At least they don't under Robert's Rules. This is one of the least understood facts of parliamentary procedure involving committees. I would like Senator Ranker to find out whether or not there is a requirement in writing that a second is necessary within that committee. And for the record, "we have always done it that way" doesn't count.
Most importantly, Senator Ericksen has placed all of the business transacted at that committee meeting at an avoidable risk of being deemed null and void. And if a Chair were to run a meeting in a similar manner in the future, then that meeting (and all of the business transacted therein), will be at risk of being deemed null and void. If this were taken to court there is a very real possibility of a court handing down a ruling that, legally, that committee meeting never happened. Such a ruling would be based on the fact that, since action taken at that meeting was taken in derogation of general parliamentary law, all such business transacted has no legal effect. Preventing Senator Ranker from exercising his basic right to have a seconded motion disposed of properly is a breach of order that is equivalent to holding a meeting without a quorum present.
In a parliamentary body, the only way that a member's basic rights of membership (like the right to make a motion) can be suspended is by way of official disciplinary action. While being appointed to a committee being chaired by Doug Ericksen might seem punitive, it doesn't qualify as official disciplinary action.
I call Bravo Sierra on Senator Ericksen on the grounds that he has worked in one or the other house of the State Legislature for 14 years and can't handle the most basic parliamentary task (holding a vote to adjourn a meeting) without tripping over his own gavel. This suggests many very bad things about how seriously he takes his job.
If Ericksen were a freshman legislator, his lack of familiarity with parli-pro could be excused. As a state legislator with 14 years of experience, it is his job to know how parli-pro works and his ham-fisted handling of this meeting is inexcusable.
I submit that Senator Ranker needs to bone up on his Parli-Pro, as well. Since he didn't seem to realize that he had the ability to make a Point of Order, or the ability to move an Appeal of the Chair's ruling, or that a motion to Adjourn was (like it or not) in order even when his motion was pending.
(I realize that the Chair was being pretty twitchy with the gavel, but that fact must be taken into account for future committee meetings. Ericksen is unlikely to be contrite or take that meeting as a "learning experience". Senator Ranker must be vigilant about his parli-pro rights in these meetings, because it is clear now that Ericksen is willing to ignore those rights. I'm willing to cut Ranker some slack here, but I submit that Ericksen will be cutting him no slack at all.)
And the fact that the entire committee membership appeared to be unaware, or unwilling to note, that the meeting was not adjourned properly implies that the entire State Senate needs a refresher course on Parli-Pro 101.
The State Senate is not a PTA, or a condo association. Parli-pro is how these citizen-legislators make decisions. And these decisions affect the entire state. And it seems reasonable to me that they be conversant, if not fluent, in their own decision making process.
I don't ever want to see a repeat of such a dreadful breach of order from members of this deliberative body of duly elected officials.
You folks in the Senate are good at getting elected. Election's over. Time to govern now.
Either do your jobs properly, or resign so that we can replace you with someone who can.
'Nerd Out.
No comments:
Post a Comment