where the Committee of the Whole could
preclude committees from finishing up their
important business by not permitting them
to sit. I think it received the unanimous
support of our Committee, proposed amend-
ment to Rule 28 [29], the rule that deals
with the committees. Delegate Chabot had
different language, but I think the basic
idea was that all committees should give
reasons for their reports and their recom-
mendations. The language we have recom-
mended as the last sentence to Rule 28
[29] states, "All committee recommenda-
tions shall be accompanied by a concise
written explanation of the reasons for the
committee's action."
I think that such an amendment is meri-
torious, for two fundamental reasons. In
the first place from the point of view of
the legislative history of this Constitutional
Convention, most of you have had occasion
to deal with problems arising under the
1867 Constitution, and the Convention dele-
gates, especially those of you who are mem-
bers of the bar, have been distressed by
the paucity of legislative history that ac-
companied the recommendations of that his-
toric body. They did not even have in those
days written committee reports, and if it
was not for an enterprising reporter of
The Sunpapers, we would probably have no
record; but there is no reason why com-
mittees should not give reasons to preserve
the record for posterity. There is an equally
important and more contemporaneous rea-
son. That is for the education of the dele-
gates. After all, we are only members of
one substantive committee, which will oc-
cupy most of our time and attention, and
when a proposal comes to us from a com-
mittee, if all we had was the bare proposal,
how in heaven's name would we be en-
lightened as to what it really meant and
what the reason for it was?
On the other hand, we do not necessarily
want Ulysses or the Holy Bible to accom-
pany ever committee report, and upon the
suggestion of Senator James, we have put
in the word, concise, which fortunately,
while the word concise means concise, it is
capable of being given a broad and flexible
interpretation. In any event, I always
thought that the rules as originally drafted
implied that all the substantive committee
reports would be written; and I think a
number of the members of the Committee
are of the same view. When we discovered
that other members of the committee did
not read the rules that way at all, we all
agreed. I think it was practically unani-
mous, possibly one slight dissent, which
was not really a dissent. We all agreed that |
the rule should make it perfectly clear that
reports of the substantive committees of
this Convention on matters pertaining to
possible amendment of our Constitution,
should be in writing and should be giving
reasons.
Then we proposed an amendment to Rule
28 [29], Rule 28A [30]. Again, this is a
matter of some substance. It reads, "Except
upon the affirmative vote of a majority of
the delegates present and voting, the Com-
mittee of the Whole will receive no final
report of a substantive committee after
November 17,1967."
This rule is a reflection of the fact that
we operate under a statutory deadline. The
most recent precedent we were able to find
is the New York Constitutional Convention
which has imposed upon its delegates a
similar deadline. It is slightly different
language than the New York proposal as
opposed to the way we propose it. The New
York Convention is not under a statutory
deadline. They imposed a deadline on them-
selves because they wanted to get the pro-
posed new Constitution on the ballot in the
November elections. We have a statutory
deadline, whether it is December 12, 1967,
on January 12, 1968, and this rule would
act as a prod to the substantive committees
to get their reports to the Committee of the
Whole by that date, which is just a little
over two months after we have begun here
on September 12; but I think there was
some feeling initially in the Committee
that this date was maybe a little too soon.
With more reflection about it, the more we
found it was a sound date; that all this
rule would insure would be that the report
would get to the Committee of the Whole.
Then we would have extended debates, but
there is, of course, an escape clause. Ob-
viously some committees will want to go
back and look at something else, or other
committees for good and sufficient reason
will not be able to meet the deadline; and
if there is a good reason why a substantive
report should be received belatedly, the ma-
jority of the delegates present and voting
would have the power to receive it. I be-
lieve, again, that that recommendation was
unanimous.
Our proposed amendment to Rule 36 is
a clarifying amendment to eliminate an in-
consistency. At the present time Rule 54
[58] provides in the order of proceeding
that when the report of the Committee of
the Whole is approved, it would go to the
Committee on Style. Rule 36, however, as it
is now written, indicates that the Commit-
tee of the Whole can refer a report to any |
