DOCSLIB.ORG

Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Supreme Court of the United States 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-1 No. 12-1281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD , Petitioner, v. NOEL CANNING , A D IVISION OF THE NOEL CORP ., and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , L OCAL 760, Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD BRADLEY T. R AYMOND 25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Of counsel: JAMES B. C OPPESS (Counsel of Record) LAURENCE GOLD 815 Sixteenth Street, N.W. 805 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 637-5337 Peake DeLancey Printers, LLC - (301) 341-4600 - Cheverly MD 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page cov-2 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................... ii STATEMENT ..................................................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................ 4 ARGUMENT ....................................................... 5 I. THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE GRANTS THE PRESIDENT THE POWER TO FILL VACANCIES DURING INTRASESSION RECESSES OF THE SENATE .................................... 5 II. THE PRESIDENT HAS THE POWER TO FILL UP ALL VACANCIES DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, REGARDLESS OF WHEN THOSE VACANCIES FIRST AROSE .... 18 III. UNDER THE PRESIDENT AND SENATE’S INTERPRETATION OF THE RECESS APPOINTMENTS CLAUSE, THE SENATE WAS IN RECESS ON JANUARY 4, 2012 ............. 22 CONCLUSION ................................................... 29 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page ii ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Page Evans v. Stephens, 387 F. 3d 1220 (11 th Cir. 2004) ........................................... 10, 19, 20 Gould v. United States , 19 Ct. Cl. 593 (1884) .. 9 INS v. Chadha , 462 U.S. 919 (1983) ............... 13 New Process Steel v. NLRB , 560 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 2635 (2010 ) .................................... 25 Nippon Steel Corp. v. International Trade Comm’n , 239 F.Supp.2d 1367 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2002) .................................................... 10 NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co ., ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 3722388 (4th Cir. 2013) .. 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 NLRB v. New Vista Nursing and Rehabilitation , 719 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013). passim The Pocket Veto Case , 279 U.S. 655 (1929) ... 12 United States v. Allocco , 305 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1962) ................................................. 20 United States v. Woodley , 751 F.2d 1008 (9th Cir. 1985) ................................................ 14, 20 Youngstown Steel Co. v. Sawyer , 343 U.S. 579 (1952) ........................................ 12 Constitution and Statutes : U.S. Const.: Art. II § 2, Cl. 2 (Appointments Clause) ..... 5 Art. II § 2, Cl. 3 (Recess Appointments Clause) ............................................................ 4, 5 5 U.S.C. § 5503 ................................................... 14, 19 29 U.S.C. § 15 8(a)(5) ........................................ 2 Legal Opinions: Appointments – Recess Appointments , 28 Comp. Gen. 30 (1948) .............................. 19 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page iii iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page Executive Authority to Fill Vacancies , 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 631(1823) ........................... 11 Executive Power-Recess Appointments , 33 Op. Att’y Gen. 20 (1921) .......................... passim Intrasession Recess Appointments , 13 Op. O.L.C. 271(1989) ................................ 17 President – Appointment of Officers – Holiday Recess, 23 Op. Att’y Gen. 599 (1901) .............................................................. 15 Recess Appointments, 41 Op. Att’y Gen. 463 (1960) .............................................................. 8, 10 Legislative Materials : 38 Cong. Rec. 113 (1903) ..................................... 16 38 Cong. Rec. 1438 (1904 ) ................................... 16 38 Cong. Rec. 1605 (1904 ) ................................... 16 39 Cong. Rec. 3828 (1905) ................................... 16 157 Cong. Rec. H9932 (daily ed., Dec. 19, 2011 ) 28 157 Cong. Rec. S8783 (daily ed., Dec. 17, 2011) ......................... 23, 25, 27, 28 157 Cong. Rec. S8789 (daily ed., Dec. 23, 2011) .................................. 26 158 Cong. Rec. S1 (daily ed., Jan. 3, 2012) ........ 24 158 Cong. Rec. S13 (daily ed., Jan. 23, 2012) ... 25, 28 158 Cong. Rec. S37 (daily ed., Jan. 23, 2012) ... 23, 24 158 Cong. Rec. S5954 (daily ed., Aug. 2, 2012) 23, 24 S. Con. Res. 1, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (Jan. 5, 2011) ...................................................... 24 S. Con. Res. 1, 112th Cong., 1st Sess. (Jan. 11. 2011) ................................................ 26 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page iv iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued Page S. Exec. J. 1st Cong., 1st Sess. (1789) ............ 20, 21 S. Exec. J. 1st Cong., 2d Sess. (1790) ............. 21 S. Pub. 112-12, Official Congressional Directory, 112thCongress (2011) .............. 9, 24, 28 S. Rep. No. 4389, 58th Cong., 3d Sess. (1905) ................................... 6, 15, 16, 18, 27 Miscellaneous: Vivian S. Chu, Cong. Res. Serv., Recess Appointments: A Legal Overview (2011) . 16 Christopher M. Davis, Cong. Res. Serv., Memorandum to Senate Minority Leader (March 8, 2012) ............................................. 23 Alexander Hamilton, Federal No. 76 (“The Appointing Power of the Executive.”) ....... 17 Henry B. Hogue, Cong. Res. Serv., Intrasession Recess Appointments (2004) 10 Henry B. Hogue, et al., Cong. Res. Serv., The Noel Canning Decision and Recess Appointments Made From 1981-2013 (2013) .............................................................. 10 Floyd M. Riddick & Alan S. Frumin , Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices (1992) ..................... 16, 17, 24, 25, 27 Mary K. Bonsteel Tachau, Federal Courts in the Early Republic: Kentucky 1789- 1816 (1978) ................................................... 21 The Writings of George Washington , vol. 30 (John C. Fitzpatrick ed., 1939). .............. 22 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page 1 1 BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 760 IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 760 – the charging party before the National Labor Relations Board and the intervenor in the court of appeals – files this brief in support of the petitioner National Labor Relations Board . STATEMENT This case arises out of the 2010 negotiations between Noel Canning and Teamsters Local 760 over a successor collective bargaining agreement. Pet. App. 65a-66a . At the December 8 bargaining session, the Company and Union negotiators reached agree - ment on all the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement. Id . at 66a-67a. One element of the agree - ment was that the covered employees would be allowed to vote to select one of two wage-benefit packages. Id . at 67a. On December 15, the employ - ees voted to select one of the packages. Id . at 7 5a. The Union then drafted a collective bargaining agree - ment containing the agreed upon terms, including the wage-benefit package selected by the employees, and presented it to Noel Canning. Id . at 80a. The Company refused to execute the collective bargain - ing agreement, insisting that the parties had not reached agreement on the alternative wage-benefit packages. Id . at 83a-84a . The Union filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the Company’s refusal to execute the agreed-upon con - (1) 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page 2 2 tract constituted bad faith bargaining in violation of Section 8(a)(5) of the National Labor Relations Act. Pet. App. 63a. The NLRB General Counsel conclud - ed that the Union’s charges had merit and issued a complaint alleging that Noel Canning had violated NLRA § 8(a)(5). Id . at 64a. Noel Canning “conceded to the Board that ‘[i]t is not in dispute that an employer violates [the NLRA] by refusing to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement incorporating all of the terms agreed upon by the parties during negotiations.’” Pet. App. 10a. “[T]he company’s chief argument before the Board [was] that the parties failed to reach any agreement at the December 2010 negotiation ses - sion.” Id . at 9a (emphasis in original). The Board, however, accepted the administrative law judge’s determination that the witnesses who testified that an agreement had been reached were more credible than the witnesses who testified that an agreement had not been reached. Id . at 81a-82a. On this basis, the Board found that an agreement had been reached and that Noel Canning’s failure to execute a collec - tive bargaining agreement containing the agreed- upon terms was a violation of the Company’s duty to bargain in good faith. Id . at 84a. In challenging the Board’s decision, Noel Canning advanced two perfunctory arguments on the merits. The Company argued first – contrary to the position it had taken before the Board and contrary to well- settled law – that it had a right under the State of Washington’s statute of frauds to repudiate the oral agreement it had reached with the Union. Second, the Company challenged the credibility determina - (2) 76??? Noel Canning Brief:68903 9/12/13 4:34 PM Page 3 3 tion of the administrative law judge
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington
    Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington As amended by the Washington State Democratic Convention on June 13th, 2020 Article I State Democratic Convention The State Convention of the Democratic Party is the highest authority of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington, subject to the provisions of the Charter of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington. The Convention shall be called by the Washington State Democratic Central Committee pursuant to Articles V and VI of the State Charter. Article II Washington State Democratic Central Committee A. Purpose and Powers 1. The Washington State Democratic Central Committee, also known as the state central committee ("SCC'), is the governing body of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington as authorized by the Democratic State Convention and the Charter of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington. 2. The SCC shall have all powers and carry out all duties delegated to it by the Convention under the Charter. The SCC is the sole Party organization authorized to collect and disburse funds in the name of the Democratic Party of the State of Washington. The SCC provides the funds, staff and other assistance necessary for the operations of its committees. B. Membership 1. The SCC shall consist of the state committeewoman and the state committeeman elected from each legislative district and from each county of the State of Washington, without regard to whether each is a precinct committee officer, in compliance with Article III B of the Charter. 2. Members shall be elected for two-year terms and shall serve until their successors have been elected.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting Course: a Congressional Management Guide
    SETTING COURSE SETTING “The best thing a new Member and his or her staff can do is to sit down and read Setting Course cover to cover. It’s a book that has stood the test of time.” —House Chief of Staff SETTING “Setting Course is written as if you were having a conversation with someone who has been on Capitol Hill for 50 years and knows how things work.” —Senate Office Manager COURSE SETTING COURSE, now in its 17th edition for the 117th Congress, is a comprehensive guide to managing a congressional office. Part I is for Members-elect and freshman offices, focusing on the tasks that are most critical to a successful transition to Congress and setting up a new office. Part II focuses on defining the Member’s role — in the office and in Congress. Part III provides guidance to both freshman and veteran Members and staff on managing office operations. Setting Course is the signature publication of the Congressional Management Foundation MANAGEMENT GUIDE CONGRESSIONAL A and has been funded by grants from: Deborah Szekely A CONGRESSIONAL MANAGEMENT GUIDE THE CONGRESSIONAL MANAGEMENT FOUNDATION (CMF) is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit whose mission is to build EDITION FOR THE trust and effectiveness in Congress. We do this by enhancing the 117th performance of the institution, legislators and their staffs through CONGRESS research-based education and training, and by strengthening the CONGRESS bridge between Congress and the People it serves. Since 1977 CMF 117th has worked internally with Member, committee, leadership, and institutional offices in the House and Senate to identify and disseminate best practices for management, workplace environment, SPONSORED BY communications, and constituent services.
    [Show full text]
  • The Judicial Appointment Process: an Appeal for Moderation and Self-Restraint
    Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development Volume 7 Issue 1 Volume 7, Fall 1991, Issue 1 Article 15 The Judicial Appointment Process: An Appeal for Moderation and Self-Restraint Joerg W. Knipprath Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/jcred This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS: AN APPEAL FOR MODERATION AND SELF-RESTRAINT JOERG W. KNIPPRATH* The original hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas brought much political posturing and theatrical grilling of the nominee. That much was expected in light of the Bork, Kennedy, and Souter hearings. As on those prior occasions, the Senators elected to define their constitutional "consent" function by prob- ing, by turns gingerly and testily, the nominee's political views. As then became painfully obvious, from October 11 th to the 13th the nomination hearing self-destructed. The scripted was out; the unexpected was in. Senators, staff, and media descended into a miasma of sexual allegations, hard-ball politics, betrayed confidences, and half-baked psychoanalysis. By the time the wal- lowing ceased, the substance of the charges had become less the issue than "the process" itself and the participants therein. Anita Hill's charges of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas were a political neutron bomb. The edifice-the confir- mation process-still stands.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate in Transition Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nuclear Option1
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NYL\19-4\NYL402.txt unknown Seq: 1 3-JAN-17 6:55 THE SENATE IN TRANSITION OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE NUCLEAR OPTION1 William G. Dauster* The right of United States Senators to debate without limit—and thus to filibuster—has characterized much of the Senate’s history. The Reid Pre- cedent, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s November 21, 2013, change to a sim- ple majority to confirm nominations—sometimes called the “nuclear option”—dramatically altered that right. This article considers the Senate’s right to debate, Senators’ increasing abuse of the filibuster, how Senator Reid executed his change, and possible expansions of the Reid Precedent. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 632 R I. THE NATURE OF THE SENATE ........................ 633 R II. THE FOUNDERS’ SENATE ............................. 637 R III. THE CLOTURE RULE ................................. 639 R IV. FILIBUSTER ABUSE .................................. 641 R V. THE REID PRECEDENT ............................... 645 R VI. CHANGING PROCEDURE THROUGH PRECEDENT ......... 649 R VII. THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION ........................ 656 R VIII. POSSIBLE REACTIONS TO THE REID PRECEDENT ........ 658 R A. Republican Reaction ............................ 659 R B. Legislation ...................................... 661 R C. Supreme Court Nominations ..................... 670 R D. Discharging Committees of Nominations ......... 672 R E. Overruling Home-State Senators ................. 674 R F. Overruling the Minority Leader .................. 677 R G. Time To Debate ................................ 680 R CONCLUSION................................................ 680 R * Former Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy for U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. The author has worked on U.S. Senate and White House staffs since 1986, including as Staff Director or Deputy Staff Director for the Committees on the Budget, Labor and Human Resources, and Finance.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 151, Pt. 8 May 24, 2005 and So out Into the Road the Three the Two Older Villains Did As They Had Mr
    May 24, 2005 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 151, Pt. 8 10929 Leahy Obama Snowe state, to calm the dangerous seas vice, but here it is. And by considering Lieberman Pryor Specter Lott Reid Stevens which, from time to time, threaten to that advice, it only stands to reason Lugar Roberts Sununu dash our Republic against rocky shoals that any President will be more as- Martinez Rockefeller Talent and jagged shores. sured that his nominees will enjoy a McCain Salazar Thomas The Senate proved it to be true again kinder reception in the Senate. McConnell Santorum Thune Mikulski Schumer Vitter yesterday, when 14 Members—from The agreement, which references the Murkowski Sessions Voinovich both sides of the aisle, Republicans and need for ‘‘advice and consent,’’ as con- Nelson (FL) Shelby Warner Democrats; 14 Members—of this re- tained in the Constitution, proves once Nelson (NE) Smith (OR) Wyden vered institution came together to again, as has been true for over 200 NAYS—18 avert the disaster referred to as the years, that our revered Constitution is Biden Dorgan Levin ‘‘nuclear option’’ or the ‘‘constitu- not simply a dry piece of parchment. It Boxer Feingold Lincoln tional option’’—these men and women is a living document. Cantwell Jeffords Murray of great courage. Yesterday’s agreement was a real-life Corzine Kennedy Reed illustration of how this historical docu- Dayton Kerry Sarbanes As William Gladstone said, in refer- Dodd Lautenberg Stabenow ring to the Senate of the United ment continues to be vital in our daily lives. It inspires, it teaches, and yester- NOT VOTING—1 States, the Senate is that remarkable body, the most remarkable day it helped the country and the Sen- Inouye of all the inventions of modern politics.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Resolution
    CONFERENCE RESOLUTION Resolved, that the following shall be the rules of the House Republican Conference for the 115th Congress: Rule 1—Conference Membership (a) Inclusion.—All Republican Members of the House of Representatives (including Delegates and the Resident Commissioner) and other Members of the House as determined by the Republican Conference of the House of Representatives (“the Conference”) shall be Members of the Conference. (b) Expulsion.—A ⅔ vote of the entire membership shall be necessary to expel a Member of the Conference. Proceedings for expulsion shall follow the rules of the House of Representatives, as nearly as practicable. Rule 2—Republican Leadership (a) Elected Leadership.—The Elected Republican Leaders of the House of Representatives are— (1) the Speaker; (2) the Republican Leader; (3) the Republican Whip; (4) the Chair of the Republican Conference; (5) the Chair of the National Republican Congressional Committee; (6) the Chair of the Committee on Policy; (7) the Vice-Chair of the Republican Conference; and, (8) the Secretary of the Republican Conference. (b) Designated Leadership.—The designated Republican Leaders of the House of Representatives are— (1) the Chair of the House Committee on Rules; (2) the Chair of the House Committee on Ways and Means; (3) the Chair of the House Committee on Appropriations; (4) the Chair of the House Committee on the Budget; (5) the Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; (6) the Chief Deputy Whip; (7) one member of the sophomore class elected by the sophomore class; and, (8) one member of the freshman class elected by the freshman class. (c) Leadership Issues.—The Republican Leader may designate certain issues as “Leadership Issues.” Those issues will require early and ongoing cooperation between the relevant committees and the Leadership as those issues evolve.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
    Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure name redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process March 9, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL31980 Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure Summary Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint officers of the United States “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.” This report describes the process by which the Senate provides advice and consent on presidential nominations, including receipt and referral of nominations, committee practices, and floor procedure. The vast majority of presidential appointees are confirmed routinely by the Senate. A regularized process facilitates quick action on thousands of government positions. The process also allows for lengthy scrutiny of candidates when necessary. Each year, a few hundred nominees to high-level positions are subject to Senate investigations and public hearings. Committees play the central role in the process through investigations and hearings. Senate Rule XXXI provides that nominations shall be referred to appropriate committees “unless otherwise ordered.” Most nominations are referred, although a Senate standing order provides that some nominations to specified positions will not be referred unless requested by a Senator. The Senate rule concerning committee jurisdictions (Rule XXV) broadly defines issue areas for committees, and the same jurisdictional statements generally apply to nominations as well as legislation. A committee often gathers information about a nominee either before or instead of a formal hearing. A committee considering a nomination has four options. It can report the nomination to the Senate favorably, unfavorably, or without recommendation, or it can choose to take no action.
    [Show full text]
  • Appointment of a Senator to the Chair 2 Rule Ii
    Senate of the United States Table of Contents RULE I. APPOINTMENT OF A SENATOR TO THE CHAIR 2 RULE II. PRESENTATION OF CREDENTIALS AND QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE 2 RULE III. OATHS 3 RULE IV. COMMENCEMENT OF DAILY SESSIONS 3 RULE V. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES 3 RULE VI. QUORUM - ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT FOR 3 RULE VII. MORNING BUSINESS 4 RULE VIII. MESSAGES 4 RULE IX. SPECIAL ORDERS 4 RULE X. VOTING PROCEDURE 4 RULE XI. RECONSIDERATION 5 RULE XII. JOINT RESOLUTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND PREAMBLES THERETO 5 RULE XIII. AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS 5 RULE XIV. REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; REPORTS OF COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE 6 RULE XV. DEBATE 7 RULE XVI. QUESTIONS OF ORDER 7 RULE XVII. SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS 8 XVIII. PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS 8 RULE XIX. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR 9 RULE XX. STANDING COMMITTEES 9 RULE XXI. COMMITTEE PROCEDURE 12 RULE XXII. CONFERENCE COMMITTEES; REPORTS; OPEN MEETINGS 13 RULE XXIII. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 15 RULE XXIV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROCEEDINGS ON TREATIES 16 RULE XXV. EXECUTIVE SESSION - PROCEEDINGS ON NOMINATIONS 16 RULE XXVI. SENATE CHAMBER 17 RULE XXVII. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 17 Page 1 of 17 Senate of the United States RULE I. APPOINTMENT OF A SENATOR TO THE CHAIR 1. In the absence of the Vice President, the Senate shall choose a President pro tempore, who shall hold the office and execute the duties thereof during the pleasure of the Senate and until another is elected or his term of office as a Senator expires. 2. The President pro tempore shall have the right to name in open Senate or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, including the signing of duly enrolled bills and joint resolutions but such substitution shall not extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent; and the Senator so named shall have the right to name in open session, or, if absent, in writing, a Senator to perform the duties of the Chair, but not to extend beyond an adjournment, except by unanimous consent.
    [Show full text]
  • School District Obligations Under the Open Meetings Law: Fact and Fiction
    SCHOOL DISTRICT OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW: FACT AND FICTION NYS School Boards Association Presented by Kimberly A. Fanniff Senior Staff Counsel TABLE OF CONTENTS Corporate Identity and Legal Authority of a School Board ....................................................... 1 Legal Status of a School Board ............................................................................................ 1 Internal Structure of a School Board ................................................................................... 1 Legal Authority of a School Board ....................................................................................... 1 Legal Authority of Individual School Board Members ......................................................... 3 Board Meetings in General ..................................................................................................... 4 Types and Frequency of Board Meetings ............................................................................ 4 Quorum Requirement ......................................................................................................... 5 Meeting Agendas ................................................................................................................. 6 Meeting Minutes ................................................................................................................. 6 Public Access to Meeting Minutes ...................................................................................... 7 Amendment to Meeting Minutes
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate "Two-Hour Rule"
    The Senate “Two-Hour Rule” Governing Committee Meeting Times Christopher M. Davis Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process Michael Greene Senior Research Librarian April 20, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R45170 The Senate “Two-Hour Rule” Governing Committee Meeting Times Summary Paragraph 5(a) of Senate Rule XXVI, sometimes referred to as the “two-hour rule,” restricts the times that most Senate committees and subcommittees can meet when the full Senate is in session. The rule is intended to help balance the Senate’s committee and floor work and to minimize the logistical conflicts that Senators face between participating in committee hearings and markups and attending to their duties on the chamber floor. Under the terms of the rule, no Senate committee or subcommittee (except the Committees on Appropriations and Budget and their subcommittees) can meet after the Senate has been in session for two hours or past 2:00 p.m. unless one of the following things occur: (1) the Senate grants unanimous consent for them to meet; (2) both the majority and minority leaders (or their designees) agree to permit the meeting, and their agreement has been announced on the Senate floor; or (3) the Senate adopts a privileged motion to allow the meeting. Should a committee meet during a restricted time period without being granted permission, any action that it takes—such as ordering a bill or nomination reported to the Senate—is considered “null, void, and of no effect.” Senate rules restricting committee meeting times have existed for over 70 years and have evolved over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate the Senate Met at 9:30 A.M
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 109 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 152 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2006 No. 76 Senate The Senate met at 9:30 a.m. and was under the control of the minority and serving for 47 years in this institution called to order by the President pro the final 15 minutes under the control is certainly remarkable, what he has tempore (Mr. STEVENS). of the majority. Following morning done during those 47 years is what is business, we will resume consideration truly remarkable. His contribution to PRAYER of the emergency supplemental appro- the public discourse and debate of our The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- priations conference report. Under the country throughout that time has been fered the following prayer: time agreement that was reached yes- truly exemplary. Let us pray. terday, we have a little over an hour I noted the other day, in fact, that Lord of truth and love, source and and a half of debate this morning. The when Senator BYRD was first elected to end of our believing and loving, You vote on the adoption of the conference the House, there was a wonderful pic- alone are worthy of our praise and we report is set for tomorrow at 10 a.m. ture taken that appeared with Senator celebrate Your great Name. Thank You Today we will continue work on the BYRD and several other Members of for the gift of Your dynamic presence Department of Defense authorization newly minted Congressmen who had in our lives and for the power we re- bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Amending Senate Rules at the Start of a New Congress, 1953-1975: an Analysis with an Afterword to 2015
    Amending Senate Rules at the Start of a New Congress, 1953-1975: An Analysis with an Afterword to 2015 (name redacted) Senior Specialist in American National Government February 23, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44395 Amending Senate Rules at the Start of a New Congress Summary The filibuster (extended debate) is the Senate’s most well-known procedure. Hollywood even highlighted its use in a famous 1939 movie entitled Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, starring actor Jimmy Stewart in the title role of Senator Jefferson Smith. Lengthy debate has many virtues (informing the public, for example) but the blocking potential of interminable debate has often made the filibuster a target for change by reform-minded Senators. Rule XXII requires 60 votes of Senators duly chosen and sworn to end debate on measures or motions—“except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two- thirds of the Senators present and voting.” Real or threatened filibusters, along with cloture motions, have increased in recent Congresses. One consequence has been unsuccessful efforts by change-oriented Senators to amend Rule XXII without having to overcome the two-thirds supermajority hurdle. The contention of the reformers is that at the start of a new Congress, the Senate can amend its rules by majority vote—as the House does on its first day. They cite the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 5) as authority for their claim: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,” which implicitly means by majority vote, state the reformers.
    [Show full text]