As pointed out in the report, the motion
contained a typographical error. The spon-
sors intended to have a cutoff day of No-
vember 17, rather than November 27, 1967.
However, our report is somewhat erroneous
when it suggests that the sponsors wanted
to use the phrase, "whichever is sooner,"
rather than the phrase they did use. I
gather that that suggestion came from a
member of our committee. In any event, in
their appearances before the Rules Com-
mittee, the two sponsors admitted that they
were not wedded to the particular form of
their motion; that their main concern was
some amendment to the rules, perhaps Rule
3I [33], which is set forth on pages I and
2 of our report, regarding the time in
which the Committee of the Whole could
take up a report of a committee. Their
concern is that they are afraid the rules
as they now stand do not afford adequate
protection to a minority in guaranteeing
that their report will come to the floor of
the Convention and be considered at the
same time as the Majority Report is con-
cerned.
I think their present position is that they
would like to see Rule 3I [33] amended to
provide a five session-day layover between
the time the report reaches the Committee
of the Whole and the time in which the
Committee of the Whole can take up that
report; and that this suggested prohibition
be applicable both to majority and minority
reports.
In the opinion of your committee, the
proposal, even as modified, should not be
adopted by the Convention.
It is our view that the rules as they now
stand, certainly with any reasonable inter-
pretation, provide the majority full pro-
tection, and we say this for a number of
reasons. In the first place, by the time the
substantive committee reaches the point
when they are voting on a report, certainly
the significant issues will have been
threshed out and debated and probably
tentative votes of the committee will al-
ready have been taken; so the minority, at
that point, will know in advance even of
the final report of the committee that they
probably will have to file a minority report
if they want a minority report to come to
the Convention.
Secondly. Rule 27 [28] of the rules as
they now stand guarantees any delegate
an opportunity for a hearing by a commit-
tee. if the committee reports to take action
with respect to a substantive matter covered
by his proposal. Certainly, a minority feel-
ing will already have been represented by |
a proposal introduced in the Convention;
so there is at least one day there. Then
Rule 3I [33] provides that there has to be
a three day delay, and I would imagine
that when this Convention reaches the
full press of business that it will be more
than a three day delay before a report
reaches and is taken up by the Committee
of the Whole.
Next, Rule 28 [29] guarantees that a re-
port of at least 20 per cent of a committee,
"Shall be received, printed in the same
manner as the majority report, and treated
as an amendment or substitute offered to or
for the report of the committee, if offered
as such on the floor."
We have examined the rules of the State
Senate. We have examined the rules of the
House of Delegates, and they provide no
guarantee at all that a minority report will
be printed, and certainly not the guarantee
that Rule 28 provides, namely, that the
minority report will receive equal treatment
with the majority report. Even in the
United States Congress, while the minority
has the guarantee that their report will
be printed, there is no guarantee of any
particular layover, except in the case of
appropriation bills, before the Committee
of the Whole can take it up; so the Rules
of the Convention as they are now drafted,
in our opinion, are very liberal and reason-
ably flexible in their protection of the mi-
nority rights. Indeed, if we imposed a five
day requirement that was applicable to both
majority and minority, it could be argued
that if the minority did not get its report
up in five days, they were out of court, so
to speak.
Finally, in the event that for reasons
which we cannot anticipate now, a minority
report were not printed in time to be con-
sidered when the Committee of the Whole
was about to take up the majority report,
certainly upon appropriate motion, made
by the spokesman for the minority, the
matter could be postponed and could be set
as a special order of business on another
day namely, one or two days after the mi-
nority report is distributed to the deals. If
the request were reasonable, certainly a
majority of the delegates would approve
it. If it were used, for instance, in a situa-
tion where the majority report had laid
in the Committee of the Whole for ten days
and on the tenth day the minority comes
forth and said, they had not had an oppor-
tunity to draft a minority report, the ma-
jority of the delegates might well question
the bona fides of such a belated request. In
any event, it would be something that would |
