PROPOSED NEW HOUSE RULES
The highlights:
1. A process is established for removal of the speaker following the refusal to recognize a member for a question of privilege. (The Tom Craddick Rule)
This had to be done. The Craddick/Keel/Wilson ruling that the speaker was an officer of the state and could not be removed except through impeachment could not be allowed to stand.
2. One-half of the Appropriations committee shall be determined on the basis of seniority (excluding the chair and vice-chair).
Wow! I didn’t expect this. It means that a lot of experienced Democrats could be back on Appropriations: Turner, Gallego, Coleman, probably Dukes. Chisum makes it. Gattis and Kolkhorst will need speaker appointments to return. In fact, most of the Rs on the committee will be wiped out unless they get speaker appointments. Well, that wasn’t a very strong bunch anyway.
3. Points of order based on the bill analysis may be overruled if the analysis is not materially or substantially misleading.
Yes, I think everybody recognized that the nitpicking of the bill analysis resulted in too many bills getting killed for hypertechnical reasons.
4. If a vacancy occurs in the office of the parliamentarian, the appointment of a new parliamentarian must be approved by the house in the next regular or special session. The parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the speaker and has a duty of loyalty and confidentiality to the speaker and each member of the house. (The Terry Keel Rule)
This change probably won’t be needed for a long time, but everyone understands why this barn door had to be closed, even though the horse didn’t get away.
5. The Calendars committee may set a third reading calendar to be considered by the house at a time certain designated by the committee. The third reading calendar has precedence at the time certain, except that the chair may permit the house to complete action on any measure under consideration.
My impression is that this rule represents a backlash against the procedure at the end of last session when members were suspending rules right and left to get bills passed instead of clearing bills on third reading. That was an ugly scene, and the rule is necessary to prevent a repeat.
6. Motions to reconsider the vote by which a bill was defeated shall not be in order unless a member has previously provided at least two hours’ notice of intent by addressing the house while the house is in session. (The Warren Chisum Rule)
Last session Chisum had a vendor bill involving drivers’ records that was defeated on the floor. The next morning there was a motion to reconsider. I don’t recall whether Chisum made the motion or not, but I do recall that hardly anybody was on the floor when the motion was made. The bill was reconsidered and Chisum lost again. That sneaky play was one of the reasons he ended up on the Ten Worst list.
7. Calendars committee rules governing debate for a bill must be laid before the house not earlier than six hours after copies of the rule have been distributed to members. To be effective, such rules must be approved by 2/3 of the members present and voting, EXCEPT that for an appropriations bill, a redistricting bill, or a tax bill, the rule may be approved by a majority vote.
This rules change could have a huge effect. In particular, the Calendars committee’s standard rule for appropriations bills—you can’t propose new spending unless you cut an equal amount from somewhere else—makes it virtually impossible to move money around in the bill. If the rule gets voted down, the levee that has held amendments back for years will collapse. You will see Democrats offer an amendment that, say, takes money away from property tax cuts and puts it into something like dropout prevention, and Republicans will may take money from schools and use it to fund vouchers. I don’t like the calendars committee rule, because it prevents full debate on the state’s priorities, but the only thing worse than preventing full debate on the state’s priorities may be allowing it.
8. Members may not indicate a preference for the position of chairman for budget and oversight when indicating their preferred substantive committee assignments.
You know what this means: no CBOs. Good for Straus. But it also means fewer plums for the speaker to hand out.
9. During a regular session, a printed copy of the calendar on which the General Appropriations bill is set for debate must be distributed to members at least 144 hours before the calendar may be considered by the house.
It doesn’t matter. They won’t read the bill anyway.
10. Bill analyses must include a separate statement that lists each statute or constitutional provision that is being amended or repealed.
I don’t know how far-reaching this is. I do know that it is impossible to know what is going on when the bill simply says it repeals section so and so. That doesn’t tell you anything.
I have one major complaint with the rules. The end of the session was so chaotic last year, particularly the last three days, that I wished the House were operating under the Laney rules. This set deadlines for the progress of bills through the process in the last two to three weeks. The idea was to reserve the last week or so for negotiating the major bills in conference committees, and generally to prevent opportunities for skullduggery. I am sorry that the proposed changes do not incorporate the Laney rules, or something similar.
On the good side, the damage inflicted by Craddick on the balance of power between the speaker and the members has been repaired. It’s way too early to say that this is a happy ending, but at least it’s a new beginning.
One further point about the rules: I think Straus makes good here on his vow to run the House for the benefit of the members. On my list, #1, #2, #4, #6, #7, #9, and #10 all are designed to empower, or just to make life easier for, members. Solomons has done a very good job of transforming Straus’s intentions into reality.
* * * *
This is the language for the procedure to appeal the refusal of a speaker to recognize a member for a question of privilege:
The refusal of the speaker to recognize a member for a question of privilege that is in order under this chapter is subject to an appeal to the house if the member seeking recognition submits to the speaker a written motion requesting recognition that is singed by at least 76 members of the house. An appeal …shall be set as a special order of the house to be considered 24 hours after the time a motion is submitted. If the appeal overturns the speaker’s refusal to recognize the member seeking recognition, the member shall be recognized on the question of privilege at the first time the question is in order….
Tagged: appropriations committee, dan gattis, dawnna dukes, garnet coleman, Joe Straus, Lois Kolkhorst, pete gallego, seniority, sylvester turner, terry keel, texas house rules, tom craddick, vacating speaker, warren chisum
anonymouse1 says:
Paul: “One further point about the rules: I think Straus makes good here on his vow to run the House for the benefit of the members.”
Thank God. The members will benefit, but the people won’t.
The Lobby wins again.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 11:05 am
To anonymouse1 –
Your comment makes no logical sense. Running the House for the benefit of the members does not strengthen the lobby. The members are elected by the public. How can the public be worse off than they were under Craddick, who centralized power in the speaker’s office and cozied up to powerful lobbyists and bigshot donors and treated even the Republican members as if they were employees?
Reply »
Let my people go says:
Paul:
These new rules changes allow the members to have a say if a new parlimentarian is appointed because of a vacancy, but what about giving the members the chance to approve the parlimentarian at the beginning of the session? Many Republicans have the same feeling about Denise Davis as many Democrats had about Terry Keel. They just don’t trust her. If Straus really wanted to clear the air and start fresh, he would not have appointed Davis. There is just too much history there. She is a vestige of the terrible end of the last session.
Reply »
Your people went Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 1:28 am
Members vote on the appointment of house officers at the beginning of session (Haney, Denise, Rod, etc.). By my recollection, all of the Republicans who’s feelings you are in touch with voted unanimously by acclamation for her hiring. Last session everyone voted in Denise, but only Craddick voted in Keel.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 7:35 am
Members have not voted on the appointment of house officers since the Clayton administration. During the Clayton administration, the housekeeping resolution that the members adopt was changed to give the speaker the authority to appoint house officers. That provision has not changed since that time. Last session, no one voted for Denise or any of the other house officers.
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I have to agree that Denise Davis was not a wise pick for Straus. I found her to be astoundingly incompetent during the 2007 session. The answers that she provided to me turned out subsequently to be wrong. Chris Greisel (sp.?) would have been a much better selection, or perhaps Bob Kelley (sp.?) or Sharon Carter (if the last two would be willing to return–even on a session only basis).
Reply »
The Accuracy Department says:
Paul, you wrote:
“I have one major complaint with the rules. The end of the session was so chaotic last year, particularly the last three days, that I wished the House were operating under the Laney rules. This set deadlines for the progress of bills through the process in the last two to three weeks.”
I guess you are not aware that the Craddick administration did not change the Laney end-of-session rules. The house WAS operating under “the Laney rules” at the end of last session. Some of those end-of-session rules were suspended last session only because of the time taken up by the attempts of Democrats and few insurgent Republicans to remove the speaker. The material sent out by Rep. Solomons only highlights changes he is proposing. The fact that nothing is included on end-of-session rules means that the Laney (and Craddick) end-of-session rules will remain intact.
Reply »
Prince Royal says:
In my legislative utopia, I think they need one other rule: That just as all bills must have a fiscal note indicating the costs to the state, all bills should have an estimated fiscal impact to local governments (municipalities, counties, school boards, MUDs).
If the legislature is going to mandate something, they should pay for it. If they are not going to pay for it, then they should know that they are voting to create an unfunded mandate and have to face their local officials with full knowledge that they created that additional burden.
I know. I am a funny Prince. It’ll never happy, but this is the right thing to do.
Reply »
anonymous says:
“6. Motions to reconsider the vote by which a bill was defeated shall not be in order unless a member has previously provided at least two hours’ notice of intent by addressing the house while the house is in session. (The Warren Chisum Rule)
Last session Chisum had a vendor bill involving drivers’ records that was defeated on the floor. The next morning there was a motion to reconsider. I don’t recall whether Chisum made the motion or not, but I do recall that hardly anybody was on the floor when the motion was made. The bill was reconsidered and Chisum lost again. That sneaky play was one of the reasons he ended up on the Ten Worst list.”
Paul:
I think the rules say that only a member from the prevailing side can make a motion for reconsideration. If that is the case, Chisum could not have made the motion unless he switched his vote at the last minute to vote against his own bill for that very purpose. That is rarely done but is the sign of an astute member when it does occur. We would have to look up the vote to know if that occurred.
Making the motion to reconsider at the beginning of a session when nobody is around is an old technique and well known by the members working and paying attention. The speaker has to recognize them for the motion.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Bill analyses must include a separate statement that lists each statute or constitutional provision that is being amended or repealed
This seems like they are trying to limit the summary bill analyses, so that they are more like what the Senate does, which are easier to write. But, does listing each statute mean stating the bill amends the Government Code or the bill amends sec. 123 of the Government Code.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 11:36 am
I think they are trying to provide the maximum amount of information, so the section would be mentioned.
Reply »
Yellow Armadillo says:
Prince, fiscal notes prepared by the LBB currently include the fiscal impact to local government, if my memory serves me correctly.
Reply »
paulburka says:
I did not publish the entirety of the new rule on motions to reconsider. The language allows one member to give notice of the motion to reconsider and stipulates that another member may make the motion, regardless of which side he was on.
Reply »
Phillip Martin says:
Some legislators and their staffs read the entire appropriations bill. I distinctly remember not sleeping for a couple days.
Having six days to read it, and then being able to offer real amendments, will reward the Members that read the bill and build a coalition around their particular amendment(s) ahead of time. Yes, it’s a huge can of worms. But in a 76-74 House, things should be as messy and democratic as possible.
Reply »
Ben Quick Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
don’t worry – amend all you want – the Senate will fix it!!! (and the house in conference)
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Well, I won’t be amending anything. I’ll continue to be in Cambrdige, MA.
Also — Rep. Coleman passed an amendment to the budget last session that stayed all the way through. It required HHSC to remove the legislative red tape surrounding the implementation of CHIP that had been erected with HB 2292 in 2003. Chairman Chisum welcomed it, Senator Zaffirini kept it on in the Senate side, it passed w/ the budget and, along with HB 109, it is why CHIP bounced back as much as it has.
And all that was under Craddick, when Dewhurst wasn’t running for re-election.
Reply »
Paul Burka's Sciatica says:
Most members and their staff DON’t read it. And what a waste of time.
If a Democrat amendment is added to the House Bill and it spends money, Ogden strikes it. It’s got to be in both versions to survive. Good Luck with that with a 19-12 GOP Senate.
Even then, both Houses usally ask to go outside the bounds when in Conference Committee and those members usally strike most of the amendments that they can.
And it’s hard to imagine Straus not givng R’s a one vote plurality on Conference Committee.
No doubt Members like Crazy Garnet Coleman will ask for Conference Committee , but askin’ ain’t gettin’.
Then there is the matter of a right wing Governor playing to his base this session. Rick Perry is going to strike through more stuff and veto more bills this session than you can shake a stick at.
He’d just love to cut $2-3 billion to show how conservative he is. Don’t thimk he won’t try.
So House D’s ought to chill out, because most of their ideas on spending will remain just that – ideas.
Reply »
Phillip Martin Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Yes, you need to build a coalition in both the House and Senate to pass a bill or amendment. Congratulations for explaining how a bill becomes a law. Is Conjunction Junction up next?
/Paul, I look forward to the day of registered users on this site.
Reply »
paulburka Reply:
January 25th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Reply to “Paul Burka’s sciatica”:
1. I don’t have sciatica.
2. Amendments do stay in the bill. Noriega’s teacher pay raise amendment stayed in the bill to the end last session, although it was modified.
3. The appropriations bill will be a Senate bill. The House will write its own version, with amendments, and return it to the Senate. The Senate can concur with House amendments (that’ll be the day) or refuse to concur and ask for the appointment of a conference committee. The Senate does not get a chance to further amend the bill. Ogden cannot strike anything on his own.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Paul, from your description I don’t see how #1 creates a motion to vacate. Just because a member is recignized doesn’t mean he can move to vacate, if the motion to vacate isn’t put in the rules.
Do the draft rules actually create such a motion?
Reply »
Ben Quick says:
I think the ultimate question is “what is the rule pertaininig to appealing the ruling of the chair”?
Lost in all the past discussion is = can any member appeal a ruling without being “recognized for that purpose” by the supreme being?
Reply »
Distinguished Gentleman says:
They appear to have missed a golden opportunity to institute term limits on the position of Speaker.
Reply »
Bob Kelley's Book Toter says:
I wish people who don’t understand the House Rules wouldn’t discuss them. This includes Burka.
Reply »
anonymous says:
Bob Kelley’s Book Toter:
That would limit the discussion to less than a dozen living souls and half of them don’t care anymore.
I have to disagree with Philip on the registered users ( I usually agree with him). As long as it stays clean, this format seems to generate lots of good and well reasoned remarks.
Reply »
Frisky Dingo says:
The proposed rules regarding the bill analyses appear well placed. Last session in particular I had the impression that BA’s were subject to some hyper-technical legal review where, even if the BA appropriately relayed to the lay reader the bill’s intent and doings, any material defect within the document rendered the bill liable to a point of order. I couldn’t tell, however, if this was the Speaker’s or the Parliamentarian’s intent. Proposing that a BA not be substantially misleading is a step in the right direction. Also, the proposed rule requiring that repealers be highlighted is well placed. Repealers are usually tucked into a section towards the back of a bill, where they’re easy to miss. Requiring that repealers be better explained in the BA will help quite a bit.
With this being said, I am curious to know what the fate of the proposed Office of Bill Analysis at Legislative Council will be.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Who is proposing the Nancy Fisher rule that says the Speaker’s Chief of Staff cannot demean members and treat them like they are their personal servants?
Reply »
David Siegel says:
We need to talk a little more about Rick Perry and the budget. The way he’s positioning himself for 2010, he’ll probably refuse to sign the bailout checks from the feds. And use the Rainy Day Fund only for tax cuts (Straus had a good line about this in Evan’s interview).
Reply »
Rosie Repealer says:
Repealers are at the end of the bill. They always list what they are repealing. Everyone reading the bill who needs to how what’s being repealed has access to a computer and all the statutes are online. Why does everyone continue to find this so confusing?
Reply »
Sam says:
Paul,
One thing missed in the parliamentarian section…lays out that the parliamentarian has a duty of confidentiality and loyalty to the speaker and to all of the members. You think this presents any conflicts of interest for the parliamentarian…regardless of who that person might be? Also curious about your thoughts on why the rules (at least the parts released so far) would not have a procedure for the removal of a speaker. Seems like a motion to vacate would still need some fleshing out.
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
Phillip Martin Reply:
January 24th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
… /Paul, I look forward to the day of registered users on this site.
wow. talk about effete snobbery! so much for democracy with a little “d”.
Reply »
Anon says:
In 1925 there was a initiative to create the role of parliamentarian in legislative bodies around the country in response to the U.S. Congress creating that office. Prior to the office being created, the clerk of the body was responsible for helping guide the presiding officer with parliamentary procedure. That system remains in many state legislative bodies around the country today. In 1925, the Texas Speaker, Lee Satterwhite, created a position known as “Secretary to the Speaker” and a young man name C. Read Grandberry was selected by the Speaker to hold that position. The following session the role of “Parliamentarian” was created and he was named to that role. C. Read Grandberry was parliamentarian of the Texas House for 17 sessions and was a Professor of Engineering at UT Austin during the interim periods. The creation of the parliamentarian role was to eleviate the pressures on other elected house officers who served all the members of the body. This advisor to the speaker helped the presiding officer to run the house in the fashion he saw fit while letting the other officers continue to serve all of the members in a non partisan capacity, mainly because they were elected by the members. When Bob Johnson(aka Big Daddy) and Bob Kelly(aka RIK) came along and served as Executive Director of TLC and Parliamentarian in their respective times, an impression was left with the members that the parliamentarian served all the members as other officers because they were the head of a non partisan agency. Most members of that time remember that when points of order were given to the parliamentarian ahead of time the parliamentarian would state which one’s were sustainable or “good” and which one’s were not. If the member chose to call it anyway they alreay knew how the Speaker would rule since the parliamentarian had already advised him. The parliamentarian role has ALWAYS been the advisor to the Speaker and never held confidentiality with the membership…until the lawyers got involved.
By entrenching the role of parliamentarian with member approval, it in effect makes the speaker poll members to see if he has the support to vote another person into that role prior to releasing that parliamentarian or possibly risk paralyzing the house(again), or at worst having a parliamentarian work against the presiding officer with a parliamentary manuever with other members…can you say motion to vacate…(sounds familiar again). It just makes the role much too political if you let the members give approval. It’s a nice concept, but it won’t work and it empowers the current parliamentarian to be even bolder.
I don’t necessarily disagree with confirming the parliamentarian as an officer to the members except that maybe they need to take a look at who pays that officer(Speaker)and if they should be moved to the House Business Office payroll like all the other officers. I know this won’t happen since the HBO knows that it is not fiscally responsible to allow an employee of the house to make 200K a year on their budget. Once again, nice attempt at making this person trusted to all the members. The amendment process should be entertaining as well.
Reply »
patriot Reply:
January 26th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Great commentary and right on. Everyone knew who Bob Kelly worked for; the Speaker. Never was an issue until they did not get what they wanted.
Reply »
Anon says:
This will be a first…the members of the house have never elected, appointed, approved, confirmed, or voted for a parliamentarian of the Texas House. It really moves that position into different territory with questionable loyalties and duties.
The members of the Senate approve the Dewhurst appointment of the Senate parliamentarian in the caucus resolution…but go with it out of courtesy to the presiding officer. The house has never had that process. Officers were elected till the 66th session and then appointed by the Speaker only after that time.
Groundbreaking stuff…
Reply »
Anonymous says:
It is interesting that they exempt denise from having to be approved this time….
Reply »
anonymouse1 says:
Anonymous Says:
January 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
“It is interesting that they exempt denise from having to be approved this time…”
Well, you would, too, if you’re calling the shots, since she so deftly wielded the hatchet from her cubbyhole office a couple of weeks ago.
So much for the spirit of comity and no revenge.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
I kinda wonder if selecting Denise Davis was meant as a poke-in-the-eye to Craddick moreso than to have a good parliamentarian.
In my dealings with her, I found Denise Davis to be largely incompetent, telling me things that were simply wrong. After that, I never asked her any further questions because I can only assume that her information is inaccurate.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
On top of all of that, her overall demeanor is extremely course and unrefined.
Reply »
Bob Kelley's Book Toter says:
To anon at 12:11:
Read Granberry started working for the speaker in 1909 and began advising the chair on legislative procedure in 1915. Oveta Culp stepped in in 1925. Read came back in 1932, and stayed for the most part, with minor interruptions because of his duties at UT. He also was a director of Lege Council.
Reply »
Anon says:
To Bob Kelley’s(sp?) Book Toter at 8:21am:
I can see where you get your information.
http://www.cemetery.state.tx.us/pub/user_form.asp?step=1&pers_id=2368
As we all know…just because you’re a page at age 10 doesn’t make you advisor to the Speaker. My references were strictly directed towards the role of “parliamentarian” in the house. Check the journals. Parliamentarian was a title not officially bestowed until 1925…Granberry most likely did advise the Speaker prior to that but as a Secretary to the Speaker. And Oveta Culp Hobby was a true trend setter of her time. She actually served as parliamentarian for the first special session of 1925 after Granberry had worked the regular session. Granberry also published the “Texas House Practice” manual each session while he was ED of the TLC establishing many of our House precedents. Hugh Brady lifted that title from the legend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oveta_Culp_Hobby
These are people that Texans should be proud of…they were a true credit to this institution and always should be remembered for their dedication.
Reply »
Waxahachie Prom Queen says:
Holy crap, some folks get barked at for harkening back to the Laney years, this is REAL ancient history!
And, one should NEVER have a discussion of House Officers without mentioning a very real motive: EO vesting. It got easier under Craddick. Imagine that.
Reply »
Bob Kelley's Book Toter says:
To Anon at 9:11:
You need to learn how to read text. I never asserted Granberry start advising the Speaker as a page in 1909. What’s clear from this resolution is that Granberry began serving as parliamentary advisor in 1915. Just because he didn’t have the title in the journal at that time doesn’t mean he didn’t do the work.
Also, Granberry edited the Texas Legislative Manual, not Texas House Practice. I don’t know where Hugh Brady got the title from, but he didn’t get it from Granberry. And the Manual doesn’t establish precedents, it reports them.
Thanks for trying.
Reply »
Bob Kelley's Book Toter says:
Oh, and the mispelling in my nom de plume is intentional.
Reply »
Anon says:
To: Bob Kelley’s Book Toter:
Wow! You’re pretty high strung…We so tried to out legislative dork each other…You win.
Reply »
removal company says:
Great blog here! Also your website loads up fast! What host are you the usage of? Can I am getting your affiliate link on your host? I desire my website loaded up as fast as yours lol
Reply »
Singapore Debate Association says:
fantastic submit, very informative. I ponder why the opposite specialists of this sector don’t understand this. You should proceed your writing. I’m confident, you’ve a huge readers’ base already!
Reply »