Rules of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits, 76 Neb
Nebraska Law Review Volume 76 | Issue 4 Article 6 1997 The eN braska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits Kim Robak Nebraska Lieutenant Governor Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation Kim Robak, The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits, 76 Neb. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol76/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Kim Robak* The Nebraska Unicameral and Its Lasting Benefits TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 791 II. Background ........................................... 793 III. Why and How the Unicameral Works ................. 799 A. Organization ...................................... 800 B. Process ........................................... 802 C. Partisanship ...................................... 804 D. The Lobby ........................................ 804 IV. Why a Nonpartisan Unicameral Is Superior to a Bicameral System ..................................... 805 A. Duplication ....................................... 805 B. Representative and Open Process .................. 809 C. Nonpartisanship .................................. 810 D. Leadership ........................................ 812 E. Lobby ............................................. 814 F. Balance -
Parliamentary Principles
Parliamentary Principles . All delegates have equal rights, privileges and obligations . The majority vote decides. The rights of the minority must be protected. Full and free discussion of every proposition presented for decision is an established right of delegates. Every delegate has the right to know the meaning of the question before the assembly and what its effect will be. All meetings must be characterized by fairness and by good faith. Basic Rules of Motions 1. Motions have a definite order of precedence, each motion having a fixed rank for its introduction and consideration. 2. ONLY ONE MOTION MAY BE CONSIDERED AT A TIME. 3. No main motion can be substituted for another main motion EXCEPT that a new main motion on the same subject may be offered as a substitute amendment to the main motion. 4. All motions require a second to begin discussion unless it is from a delegation or committee or it is a simple request such as a question of privilege, a point of order or division. AMENDMENTS FOUR WAYS TO AMEND A MAIN MOTION 1. Amend by addition 2. Amend by deletion 3. Amend by addition and deletion 4. Amend by substitution TWO ORDERS OF AMENDMENTS 1. First order is an amendment to the original resolution 2. Second order is an amendment to the first order amendment. 3. No more than one order of amendment is discussed at the same time. Voting on Motions Majority vote: the calculation of the vote is based on the number of members present and voting or a majority of the legal votes cast ; abstentions are not counted; delegates who fail to vote are presumed to have waived the exercise of their right; applies to most motions Two-Thirds vote : a supermajority 2/3 vote is required when the vote restricts the right of full and free discussion: This includes a vote to TABLE, CLOSE DEBATE, LIMIT/EXTEND DEBATE, as well as to SUSPEND RULES. -
Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE
UNITED STATES Proxy Voting Guidelines Benchmark Policy Recommendations TITLE Effective for Meetings on or after February 1, 2021 Published November 19, 2020 ISS GOVERNANCE .COM © 2020 | Institutional Shareholder Services and/or its affiliates UNITED STATES PROXY VOTING GUIDELINES TABLE OF CONTENTS Coverage ................................................................................................................................................................ 7 1. Board of Directors ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Voting on Director Nominees in Uncontested Elections ........................................................................................... 8 Independence ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 ISS Classification of Directors – U.S. ................................................................................................................. 9 Composition ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Responsiveness ................................................................................................................................................... 12 Accountability .................................................................................................................................................... -
City Resident Abel Padro Is Named Director of Community House's
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE …. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE … City resident Abel Padro is named director of Community House’s Head Start program WEST HAVEN (Nov. 1, 2011) - West Haven resident Abel Padro was recently named the director of the Head Start program at the West Haven Community House, replacing Linda Michaels, who retired after 30+ years at the agency. Patty Stevens, executive director of the Community House, said, “Abel has had a long and successful career in Head Start and early childhood education. “Abel was the first Executive Director of LULAC Head Start in New Haven, serving in that capacity for almost 20 years before moving on to the United Way of Eastern Fairfield County, where he was the Director of the ‘Success by 6 Initiative.’ “His most recent employment was with ABCD Inc. in Bridgeport where he was the associate director of the Early Learning Division. He also was a Federal Review Consultant, EDC consultant and a consultant for the Head Start Region I in Boston. “We are very pleased to be able to welcome someone with Abel’s vast experience in early childhood education to our management team, as well as someone with deep roots in our West Haven community,” Stevens said. Padro said, “I am very happy to be back in West Haven and working for the Community House, which has a long tradition of offering excellent services to city residents, including our Head Start program.” The Community House’s Head Start program serves more than 160 pre-school aged children and their families with full-day, full-year programs on a sliding scale fee basis for the children of parents who are working or going to school. -
Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President. -
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. -
Ways and Means Committee's Request for the Former President's
(Slip Opinion) Ways and Means Committee’s Request for the Former President’s Tax Returns and Related Tax Information Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f )(1) Section 6103(f )(1) of title 26, U.S. Code, vests the congressional tax committees with a broad right to receive tax information from the Department of the Treasury. It embod- ies a long-standing judgment of the political branches that the tax committees are uniquely suited to receive such information. The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In assessing whether requested information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose, the Executive Branch must give due weight to Congress’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Like courts, therefore, Executive Branch officials must apply a pre- sumption that Legislative Branch officials act in good faith and in furtherance of legit- imate objectives. When one of the congressional tax committees requests tax information pursuant to section 6103(f )(1), and has invoked facially valid reasons for its request, the Executive Branch should conclude that the request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose only in exceptional circumstances. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information. Under section 6103(f )(1), Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee. July 30, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Internal Revenue Code requires the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to keep tax returns and related information confidential, 26 U.S.C. -
MASTER MUNICIPAL CLERK ACADEMY October 19-21, 2016 MCM Eleganté Hotel – Albuquerque
MASTER MUNICIPAL CLERK ACADEMY October 19-21, 2016 MCM Eleganté Hotel – Albuquerque TOTAL ACADEMY HOURS: 20 -PRELIMINARY PROGRAM- WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19 7:30 am Registration 8:00 am – 5:15 pm PUBLIC SPEAKING FOR THE PUBLIC SERVANT Learn to write a speech that is powerful and delivers an effective result. Increase self-confidence, credibility and authority while delivering a clear message. Participants will have the opportunity to prepare and practice speech writing and delivery in a safe environment while learning skills they can use in all aspects of their life, from parenting to politicking. Learn the six principles of influence and persuasion used to create rapport, connection and move others towards a desired result. This is a “must attend” session for anyone that wishes to influence others in an ethical manner. What makes a good speech? What makes a good speaker? The components of a speech How to organize your information so that it makes sense! Writing an introduction How to introduce appropriately Good content for the body of your speech Body language Room set-up Selecting a topic Evaluating and analyzing the audience Deception and manipulation Ethics and truthfulness Using a microphone How to incorporate the 6 Principles of Influence and Persuasion into a speech and into daily life Close with power Instructor: Liz Walcher, Ph.D., CPT Organizational Consulting & Development Albuquerque, NM Mid-Morning & Mid-Afternoon Breaks 12:15 – 12:55 pm Lunch on Your Own THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20 8:00 am – 5:15 pm DEMOCRACY IN ACTION – PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNING BODY MEETINGS I. Parliamentary Procedure a. -
1 Religion and the Courts 1790-1947 Leslie C. Griffin When the Framers
Religion and the Courts 1790-1947 Leslie C. Griffin* When the Framers drafted the United States Constitution in 1787, the only mention of religion was the remarkable text of Article VI, which states “no Religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” That groundbreaking language marked a shift from prior practice in Europe and the states. At the time of the Constitution’s drafting, most states had religious qualifications for government officials, following the pattern in Britain, where the monarch was required to be a member of the Church of England. In Europe the guiding principle was cuius regio, eius religio: the religion of the people is determined by the religion of the ruler. Many of the Framers, especially James Madison, believed that the new Constitution protected liberty of conscience by creating a government of enumerated and separate powers that gave Congress no authority over religion. During the ratification process, however, constitutional critics demanded greater protection of individuals from the power of the government. In order to secure the Constitution’s ratification, the new Congress drafted a Bill of Rights that protected religious freedom in the following language: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Upon ratification by the states in 1791, the language about religion became the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 The two Religion Clauses of the First Amendment are known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Although Madison suggested that the standard protecting liberty of conscience should apply to state as well as federal governments, the language of the First Amendment—“Congress 1 shall”—applied only to the federal government. -
Simplified Parliamentary Procedure
Extension to Communities Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure 2 • Iowa State University Extension Introduction Effective Meetings — Simplifi ed Parliamentary Procedure “We must learn to run a meeting without victimizing the audience; but more impor- tantly, without being victimized by individuals who are armed with parliamentary procedure and a personal agenda.” — www.calweb.com/~laredo/parlproc.htm Parliamentary procedure. Sound complicated? Controlling? Boring? Intimidating? Why do we need to know all those rules for conducting a meeting? Why can’t we just run the meetings however we want to? Who cares if we follow parliamentary procedure? How many times have you attended a meeting that ran on and on and didn’t accomplish anything? The meeting jumps from one topic to another without deciding on anything. Group members disrupt the meeting with their own personal agendas. Arguments erupt. A few people make all the decisions and ignore everyone else’s opinions. Everyone leaves the meeting feeling frustrated. Sound familiar? Then a little parliamentary procedure may just be the thing to turn your unproductive, frustrating meetings into a thing of beauty — or at least make them more enjoyable and productive. What is Parliamentary Procedure? Parliamentary procedure is a set of well proven rules designed to move business along in a meeting while maintaining order and controlling the communications process. Its purpose is to help groups accomplish their tasks through an orderly, democratic process. Parliamentary procedure is not intended to inhibit a meeting with unnecessary rules or to prevent people from expressing their opinions. It is intended to facilitate the smooth func- tioning of the meeting and promote cooperation and harmony among members. -
Section II LEGISLATURES and LEGISLATION 1. Legislative
I . s . ^ • -• -y- ;•,.-. • ; ,. ; -, /,. •,;.-.^ •• .. ^ "'• " '-"t- Section II LEGISLATURES AND LEGISLATION 1. Legislative Organization and Services 2. Legislation • .••••.4- J • •••••fe^^r^. • "^VV"/. „._'*; T- Qi A-.. ^!^ 0 1 Legislative Organization and Services -T-^ STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURES HE citizens of the states through their widely from state to state:—in Idaho there Tconstitutions have vested the su- are forty-four Senators to fifty-nine Rep- preme latv-making power in their resentatives; in New Hampshire there are legislatures. They have provided for the twenty-four Senators to 400 RepresenP**' popular election at frequent intervals of atives. *'. those whoxomprise th^ legislative bodies. With two noteworthy exceptions, only Except in Nebraska they have established minor changes have been made by sta|jes two-house legislatures. during the past biennium in the size of. Beyond these common elements, a wide their legislatures. The exceptions ar$ variety of constitutional provisions, stat- Alaska and Hawaii, which became istate^ utory requirements, rules and preceden^ts during the period under review. In the. govern the workings of the state legisla- former the legislature was increased from tures. Together they determine the many forty to sixty members;" in Hawaii, the details of legislative structure, organiza- total went from forty-five to seventy-six. In tion and procedure, the purpose of which both states, the lower house noyf is ahnost is to enable the legislatures to carry out exactly twice as large as the Senate, their responsibilities in an orderly and "In all states legislative terms are either effective manner. two years or four. State Senators in thirty- „ five states—an increatse of three in the past biZE AND lERMs biennium—serve for four ycarsHn fifteen In Nsize American state legislatures (including Nebraska) they serve for two. -
Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: in Brief Name Redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief name redacted Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process April 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R44819 Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Senate Proceedings Establishing Majority Cloture on Nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Related CRS Products ..................................................................................................................... 3 Contacts Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 4 Congressional Research Service Majority Cloture for Supreme Court Nominations: In Brief Introduction On April 6, 2017, the Senate reinterpreted Rule XXII to allow a majority of Senators voting, a quorum being present, to invoke cloture on nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court. Before the Senate reinterpreted the rule, ending consideration of nominations to the Supreme Court required a vote of three-fifths of Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 Senators unless there was more than one vacancy). The practical effect of the Senate action on April 6 was to reduce the level of Senate support necessary