THE CHAIRMAN: No, the rules pro-
posed by the Rules Committee are before
the Convention. They are open for amend-
ment before we take a vote.
DELEGATE MALKUS: Mr. President
pro tem, I spent quite a bit of time reading
these rules, and now I have before me a
different set of, rules, and I think before
we vote on these rules we should have a
chance to read them. Most of us I do not be-
lieve have done so. I think that the Chair-
man of the Temporary Rules Committee
should bring to the attention of this Con-
vention where the changes have been made.
I think it only fair we know which rules
have had changes made.
THE CHAIRMAN: If Delegate Weide-
meyer will yield the floor, I will ask the
Chairman of the Committee if he is pre-
pared to make this clarification of the
changes made by the Rules Committee, I
think that has been done to a large extent.
However, I think the point is well taken.
Delegate Weidemeyer, will you yield the
floor?
DELEGATE SCANLAN: I tried to ac-
commodate Senator Malkus. We did touch
on some of the changes, I apologize if I
did not touch upon them all. I had some
consideration of the heat prevailing in the
chamber and the task ahead.
We will try to accommodate Delegate
Malkus.
There was a change in Rule 3 that pro-
vided in essence that once a roll call was
sounded, if people responded, they could not
leave the Convention without permission
from the president. The feeling was this
was a little schoolboy issue, that they
could not be trusted so that proposed rule
was deleted.
In Rule 3, the only change there was the
words, "Such other officers as may be neces-
sary." I think the latest word was em-
ployees, and the feeling was, that while
the sergeant-at-arms might in some quar-
ters be regarded as an employee, in others
he would not; and people like secretary,
chief clerk, historian, parliamentarian, were
entitled to the dignity of the title, "officer."
The change in Rule 5, I have already
referred to, namely that the vice-chairmen
of the various committees shall be elected
by their colleagues, I am not sure there
are editorial changes that I have omitted,
here. There was a change in Rule 22 [23]
where originally it stated the Committee on
Rules and Convention. There was a strong
feeling that it should be the Committee on |
Convention Budget or Administration. On
the other hand, there was an equally strong
feeling that the number of committees
should be kept to a minimum if possible.
Somebody in a stroke of genius suggested
we give a little more work to the Com-
mittee on Rules and Credentials and add
the Convention budget function to that
committee.
The next change is the one I have al-
ready referred to, namely that each dele-
gate shall be guaranteed the right if he
wants to, to be a member of at least one
subcommittee.
There was a further change in Rule 29
[31], an important change that I called
your attention to, the deletion of the re-
quirement that "all meetings be public un-
less the majority of the delegates gave an
approval to hold an executive session. Par-
don me. Somewhere along in here, Delegate
Malkus, I do not have the mark on top of
the file, but there was a proposal that the
Convention would have subpoena power and
would have the power to take testimony
under oath, and that was stricken, I be-
lieve, on a near unanimous vote. I see Dele-
gate Boyer shaking his head, and I think
my recollection is the same as his. The
feeling was, first, that there was substan-
tial legal doubt that this Convention would
have subpoena power or the power required
for sworn testimony. Second, that even if
we had the power, how could we enforce it.
Third, that even if we had the power and
could enforce it, we probably would never
use it anyway, and fourth, that if we ever
really had to get a subpoena, we could pass
a resolution authorizing it then. Therefore,
for all these reasons, it was the unanimous
recommendation of the Committee that the
proposed rule regarding subpoena power
and sworn testimony be deleted, and it has
been deleted in our report.
Rule 37 [39] is the rule about limitation
of debate, which was left open. We have
left open about the limitation of debate, I
think I may be describing some editorial
changes, but I do not believe I am omitting
any matter of substance. If any member of
the Commission is here, please correct me.
There was some slight change about the
motion for reconsideration, to make clear
that a delegate would have one crack at it,
that he could not come back with a series
of motions for reconsideration, but the
Committee on Style, as I indicated, would
have the right to do so.
Rule 49 [53] is that rule about the mo-
tion to adjourn the Convention sine die. |
