DOCSLIB.ORG

§ 16. Censure; Reprimand Cial Duties

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
§ 16. Censure; Reprimand Cial Duties CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16 Albert, of Oklahoma, promising to considering the matter is at lib- refrain from voting on the floor or erty to act on his sound discretion in committee and from partici- and vote according to the dictates pating in committee business of his own judgment and con- pending an appeal of his convic- science. tion.(6) The conduct for which censure may be imposed is not limited to acts relating to the Member’s offi- § 16. Censure; Reprimand cial duties. See In re Chapman (166 U.S. 661 [1897]). The com- In the House, the underlying mittee considering censure of Sen- concept governing the censure of a ator Joseph McCarthy stated (S. Member for misconduct is that of Rept. No. 2508, 83d Cong., p. 22): breach of the rights and privileges ‘‘It seems clear that if a Senator (7) of the House. As indicated in a should be guilty of reprehensible report of a select committee of the conduct unconnected with his offi- House,(8) the power of each House cial duties and position, but which to censure its Members ‘‘for dis- conduct brings the Senate into orderly behavior’’ is found in arti- disrepute, the Senate has the cle I section 5 clause 2 of the U.S. power to censure.’’ Constitution. It is discretionary in character, and upon a resolution During its history, through the for censure of a Member for mis- 94th Congress, the House of Rep- conduct each individual Member resentatives has censured 17 Members and one Delegate and 6. See Congressional Quarterly Weekly has reprimanded one Member in Report, July 8, 1972, p. 1167. the 94th Congress. All but one of See also 6 Cannon’s Precedents the instances of censure occurred §§ 402, 403, wherein a select com- during the 19th century, 13 Mem- mittee assumed that a Member in- dicted under federal law would take bers being censured between 1864 no part whatever in any of the busi- and 1875. The last censure in the ness of the House or its committees House was imposed in 1921. In until final disposition of the case was the Senate, there are four in- made. stances of censure, including the 7. 2 Hinds’ Precedents § 1644. censure of Senator Joseph McCar- 8. H. REPT. NO. 90–27, 90th Cong. 1st thy in 1954. Sess., Feb. 23, 1967, ‘‘In Re Adam Clayton Powell, Report of the Select Most cases of censure have in- Committee Pursuant to H. Res. 1,’’ volved the use of unparliamentary pp. 24–30. language, assaults upon a Mem- 1743 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS ber or insults to the House by in- In 1873, during the 42d Con- troduction of offensive resolu- gress, a special investigating com- tions,(9) but in five cases in the mittee was appointed to inquire House and one in the Senate cen- into charges that Representatives sure was based on corrupt acts by Oakes Ames and James Brooks had been bribed in connection a Member, and in another Senate with the Credit Mobilier Co. and case censure was based upon non- the Union Pacific Railroad.(11) Al- cooperation with and abuse of Senate committees.(10) placed on the Senate payroll, and used as a consultant on a pending 9. See 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1246– tariff bill, one Charles L. Eyanson, 1249, 1251, 1256, 1305, 1621, 1656; who was simultaneously in the em- 6 Cannon’s Precedents § 236. ploy of the Manufacturers Associa- 10. See 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1239, tion of Connecticut. The Senate 1273, 1274, 1286; 6 Cannon’s Prece- adopted a resolution of censure pro- dents § 239; ‘‘Senate Election, Expul- viding that Senator Bingham’s con- sion and Censure Cases,’’ S. Doc. No. duct regarding Eyanson ‘‘while not 71, 87th Cong., pp. 125–27, 152–54. the result of corrupt motives on the In 1870, during the 41st Congress, part of the Senator from Con- the House censured John T. necticut, is contrary to good morals DeWeese, B. F. Whittemore, and and senatorial ethics and tends to Roderick R. Butler for the sale of ap- bring the Senate into dishonor and pointments to the U. S. Military and disrepute, and such conduct is here- Naval Academies. In Butler’s case, by condemned.’’ 6 Cannon’s Prece- the Member had appointed to the dents § 239. Military Academy a person not a 11. The committee reported that Rep- resident of his district and subse- resentative Oakes Ames ‘‘has been quently received a political contribu- guilty of selling to Members of Con- tion from the cadet’s father. Censure gress shares of stock in the Credit of DeWeese and Whittemore was Mobilier of America for prices much voted notwithstanding that each had below the true value of such stock, previously resigned. A resolution to with intent thereby to influence the expel Butler was defeated upon fail- votes and decisions of such Members ure to obtain a two-thirds vote, in matters to be brought before Con- whereupon a resolution of censure gress for action.’’ With regard to was voted in which the House Representative James Brooks, the ‘‘declare[d] its condemnation’’ of his committee found that he ‘‘did pro- conduct, which it characterized as cure the Credit Mobilier Co. to issue ‘‘an unauthorized and dangerous and deliver to Charles H. Neilson, practice’’ (2 Hinds’ Precedents for the use and benefit of said §§ 1239, 1273, 1274). Brooks, 50 shares of the stock of said In 1929 Senator Hiram Bingham company at a price much below its (Conn.) was censured for having real value, well knowing that the 1744 CONDUCT OR DISCIPLINE Ch. 12 § 16 though the committee rec- the electorate at the previous elec- ommended that both Members be tion and to the prior House, and expelled, the House adopted sub- the extent to which they directly stitute censure resolutions in involve the authority, integrity, which it ‘‘absolutely condemn[ed]’’ dignity, or reputation of the the conduct of Ames and Brooks House.(12) (2 Hinds’ Precedents § 1286). Censure, like other forms of dis- Although there has been a di- cipline except expulsion, is by a vergence of views concerning the majority of those voting, a quorum power of a House to expel a Mem- being present. (6 Cannon’s Prece- ber for acts committed during a dents § 236.) The House itself preceding Congress, the right of a must order the censure. The Speaker cannot, of his own au- House to censure a Member for thority, censure a Member.(13) such prior acts is supported by clear precedent in both Houses of A censure resolution may call for direct and immediate action by Congress—namely, the case of the House; (14) or it may rec- Ames and Brooks in the House of ommend that a committee be ap- Representatives and the case of pointed to investigate and report Senator McCarthy in the Senate. to the House.l5 A House select In Ames and Brooks the acts for committee may recommend cen- which censure was voted occurred sure of a Member along with more than five years prior to cen- other forms of punishment in re- sure and two congressional elec- sponse to a resolution to inves- tions had intervened. tigate and recommend as to the Thus, the broad power of the initial and final right to a seat.(16) House to censure Members ex- tends to acts occurring during a 12. H. REPT. No. 90–27, 90th Cong. 1st prior Congress. Whether such Sess., Feb. 23, 1967. See also § 8.4, supra. powers should be invoked in such 13. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1344, 1345; 6 circumstances is a matter com- Cannon’s Precedents § 237. mitted to the discretion and judg- 14. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1246–1251, ment of the House upon consider- 1254–1258; 6 Cannon’s Precedents ation of the nature of the prior §§ 236, 239. acts, whether they were known to 15. 2 Hinds’ Precedents §§ 1649–1651, 1655 1656. same was so issued and delivered 16. 113 CONG. REC. 4997, 90th Cong. 1st with intent to influence the votes Sess., Mar. 1, 1967; see 113 CONG. and decisions of said Brooks as a REC. 24, 26, 27, 90th Cong. 1st Sess., Member of the House.’’ Jan. 10, 1967. 1745 Ch. 12 § 16 DESCHLER’S PRECEDENTS Floor debate on a resolution of House, whereas a reprimand is censure is under the hour rule.(17) administered to the Member The House has permitted the ‘‘standing in his place’’ (23) or Member to be heard in debate as merely by way of the adoption of a matter of course without per- a committee report. Thus in mission being asked or given,(18) 1976,(24) the House administered a or by unanimous consent.(19) And reprimand to Mr. Robert L. F. the Member controlling debate Sikes, of Florida, by adopting by a under the hour rule can yield time vote of 381 yeas to 3 nays a reso- to the Member being censured. In lution (H. Res. 1421) which pro- one instance, after a Member had vided that the House adopt the re- explained, the House reconsidered port of the Committee on Stand- its vote of censure and reversed ards of Official Conduct on the in- it.(20) In some situations where vestigation of a complaint against Members have apologized fol- Mr. Sikes. The Speaker adminis- lowing the initiation of censure tered no oral reprimand. The re- proceedings, the House has ac- port (1) declared that (a) failure of cepted the apology and terminated Mr. Sikes to report certain the proceedings.(21) stockholdngs as required by After the House has ordered House Rule XLIV was deserving censure, it is normally adminis- of a reprimand, and (b) that the tered by the Speaker to the Mem- investment by him in the stock of ber at the bar of the House.(22) a bank at a naval base in Florida The House has on occasion and activities in promoting its es- made a distinction between cen- tablishment was deserving of a sure and reprimand, the latter reprimand.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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 ....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee Handbook New Mexico Legislature
    COMMITTEE HANDBOOK for the NEW MEXICO LEGISLATURE New Mexico Legislative Council Service Santa Fe, New Mexico 2012 REVISION prepared by: The New Mexico Legislative Council Service 411 State Capitol Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 986-4600 www.nmlegis.gov 202.190198 PREFACE Someone once defined a committee as a collection of people who individually believe that something must be done and who collectively decide that nothing can be done. Whether or not this definition has merit, it is difficult to imagine the work of a legislative body being accomplished without reliance upon the committee system. Every session, American legislative bodies are faced with thousands of bills, resolutions and memorials upon which to act. Meaningful deliberation on each of these measures by the entire legislative body is not possible. Therefore, the job must be broken up and distributed among the "miniature legislatures" called standing or substantive committees. In New Mexico, where the constitution confines legislative action to a specified number of calendar days, the work of such committees assumes even greater importance. Because the role of committees is vital to the legislative process, it is necessary for their efficient operation that individual members of the senate and house and their staffs understand committee functioning and procedure, as well as their own roles on the committees. For this reason, the legislative council service published in 1963 the first Committee Handbook for New Mexico legislators. This publication is the sixth revision of that document. i The Committee Handbook is intended to be used as a guide and working tool for committee chairs, vice chairs, members and staff.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries
    Points of Order; Parliamentary Inquiries A. POINTS OF ORDER § 1. In General; Form § 2. Role of the Chair § 3. Reserving Points of Order § 4. Time to Raise Points of Order § 5. Ð Against Bills and Resolutions § 6. Ð Against Amendments § 7. Application to Particular Questions; Grounds § 8. Relation to Other Business § 9. Debate on Points of Order; Burden of Proof § 10. Waiver of Points of Order § 11. Withdrawal of Points of Order § 12. Appeals B. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRIES § 13. In General; Recognition § 14. Subjects of Inquiry § 15. Timeliness of Inquiry § 16. As Related to Other Business Research References 5 Hinds §§ 6863±6975 8 Cannon §§ 3427±3458 Manual §§ 627, 637, 861b, 865 A. Points of Order § 1. In General; Form Generally A point of order is in effect an objection that the pending matter or proceeding is in violation of a rule of the House. (Grounds for point of order, see § 7, infra.) Any Member (or any Delegate) may make a point of order. 6 Cannon § 240. Although there have been rare instances in which the Speaker has insisted that the point of order be reduced to writing (5 633 § 1 HOUSE PRACTICE Hinds § 6865), the customary practice is for the Member to rise and address the Chair: MEMBER: Mr. Speaker (or Mr. Chairman), I make a point of order against the [amendment, section, paragraph]. CHAIR: The Chair will hear the gentleman. It is appropriate for the Chair to determine whether the point of order is being raised under a particular rule of the House. The objecting Member should identify the particular rule that is the basis for his point of order.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Process on the House Floor: an Introduction
    The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction Updated May 20, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov 95-563 The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction Summary The daily order of business on the floor of the House of Representatives is governed by standing rules that make certain matters and actions privileged for consideration. On a day-to-day basis, however, the House can also decide to grant individual bills privileged access to the floor, using one of several parliamentary mechanisms. The standing rules of the House include several different parliamentary mechanisms that the body may use to act on bills and resolutions. Which of these will be employed in a given instance usually depends on the extent to which Members want to debate and amend the legislation. In general, all of the procedures of the House permit a majority of Members to work their will without excessive delay. The House considers most legislation by motions to suspend the rules, with limited debate and no floor amendments, with the support of at least two-thirds of the Members voting. Occasionally, the House will choose to consider a measure on the floor by the unanimous consent of Members. The Rules Committee is instrumental in recommending procedures for considering major bills and may propose restrictions on the floor amendments that Members can offer or bar them altogether. Many major bills are first considered in Committee of the Whole before being passed by a simple majority vote of the House. The Committee of the Whole is governed by more flexible procedures than the basic rules of the House, under which a majority can vote to pass a bill after only one hour of debate and with no floor amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • BRNOVICH V. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2020 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus BRNOVICH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ARIZONA, ET AL. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–1257. Argued March 2, 2021—Decided July 1, 2021* Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election- day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in per- son on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135.
    [Show full text]
  • Steering Committee Ground Rules
    The Humboldt Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan STEERING COMMITTEE GROUND RULES PURPOSE As the title suggests, the role of the Steering Committee is to guide the Humboldt County Planning Partners through the process of updating the 2008 Humboldt Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan. This process will result in a plan that can be embraced both politically and by the constituency within the planning area. The Committee will provide guidance and leadership, oversee the planning process, and act as the point of contact for all partners and the various interest groups in the planning area. The makeup of this committee was selected to provide the best possible cross section of views to enhance the planning effort and to help build support for hazard mitigation. CHAIRPERSON The Steering Committee selected Jay Parrish, City Manager of the City of Ferndale to be chairperson. The role of a chair is to: 1) lead meetings so that agendas are followed and meetings adjourn on-time, 2) allow all members to be heard during discussions, 3) moderate discussions between members with differing points of view, 4) be a sounding board for staff in the preparation of agendas and how to best involve the full Committee in work plan tasks, 5) and to act as spokesperson during public involvement processes and public interchanges. Hank Seemann of County of Humboldt Public Works, was selected as vice chairperson to take the chair's role when the chair is not available. The Committee chose to adopt a rule that requires either the chair or the vice chair to be present at any given meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert's Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council Voting
    Robert’s Rules of Order As Used by the General Tribal Council Voting Majority Vote - used in most instances and requires a simple majority of the members voting, excluding those who choose to abstain. The abstentions are asked for to complete the record, not to include them in the count. Two-Thirds Vote - used to overturn a previous action as identified in the Ten Day Notice Policy. Requires two-thirds of those voting to take action, excluding those who choose to abstain. The total number of votes, divided by three, multiplied times two. Fragments are included in the ‘yes’ votes as that is where two-thirds of the vote lies. Note: an action of the membership to overturn a prior action taken at a meeting which was concluded by the Business Committee on behalf of the General Tribal Council, because no quorum was met, falls within the Ten Day Notice Policy requirements. Tie Votes - in the event of a tie, the Chairperson can vote. A tie is identified in Robert’s Rules of Order as an occasion where if the Chair casts a vote, a different outcome will result. The Constitution identifies that the Chair votes “only in the case of a tie.” This has been identified to limit the ability of the Chair to vote to break a tie vote. In the case of a two- thirds vote, where it would change the results of the vote. Point of Order A point of order arises when a member who has the floor is not talking about the subject matter on the agenda before the membership at that time in the meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Adjournment
    Chapter 1 Adjournment A. GENERALLY; ADJOURNMENTS OF THREE DAYS OR LESS § 1. In General § 2. Adjournment Motions and Requests; Forms § 3. When in Order; Precedence and Privilege of Motion § 4. In Committee of the Whole § 5. Who May Offer Motion; Recognition § 6. Debate on Motion; Amendments § 7. Voting § 8. Quorum Requirements § 9. Dilatory Motions; Repetition of Motion B. ADJOURNMENTS FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS § 10. In General; Resolutions § 11. Privilege of Resolution § 12. August Recess C. ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE § 13. In General; Resolutions § 14. Procedure at Adjournment; Motions Research References U.S. Const. art. I, § 5 5 Hinds §§ 5359–5388 8 Cannon §§ 2641–2648 Manual §§ 82–84, 911–913 1 VerDate 29-JUL-99 20:28 Mar 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 2574 Sfmt 2574 C:\PRACTICE\DOCS\MHP.001 PARL1 PsN: PARL1 §1 HOUSE PRACTICE A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less § 1. In General Types of Adjournments Adjournment procedures in the House are governed by the House rules and by the Constitution. There are: (1) adjournments of three days or less, which are taken pursuant to motion; (2) adjournments of more than three days, which require the consent of the Senate (§ 10, infra); and (3) adjourn- ments sine die, which end each session of a Congress and which require the consent of both Houses. Adjournments of more than three days or sine die are taken pursuant to concurrent resolutions. §§ 10, 13, infra. Adjournment Versus Recess Adjournment is to be distinguished from recess. The House may author- ize a recess under a motion provided in rule XVI clause 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Rules Committee Procedures
    Rules Committee Procedures 2012 CONTENTS Senate Rules Committee Process .................................................. Page 3 House Rules Committee Process ................................................... Page 5 ************************************************************* Senate Rules Committee Members – 2012 Lt. Governor Brad Owen, Chair Senator Margarita Prentice, Vice Chair Senator Lisa Brown Senator Curtis King Senator Mike Carrell Senator Adam Kline Senator Steve Conway Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles Senator Tracey Eide Senator Rosemary McAuliffe Senator Karen Fraser Senator Linda Parlette Senator Nick Harper Senator Cheryl Pflug Senator Mary Haugen Senator Debbie Regala Senator Mike Hewitt Senator Mark Schoesler Senator Karen Keiser Senator Val Stevens Senator Joseph Zarelli ************************************************************* House Rules Committee Members - 2012 Rep. Frank Chopp, Chair Rep. Jan Angel Rep. Jim Moeller Rep. Mike Armstrong Rep. Tina Orwall Rep. Cathy Dahlquist Rep. Eric Pettigrew Rep. Richard DeBolt Rep. Tim Probst Rep. Deb Eddy Rep. Ann Rivers Rep. Roger Goodman Rep. Cindy Ryu Rep. Tami Green Rep. Joe Schmick Rep. Bob Hasegawa Rep. Shelly Short Rep. Norm Johnson Rep. Larry Springer Rep. Troy Kelley Rep. Pat Sullivan Rep. Joel Kretz Rep. Kevin Van De Wege Rep. Marcie Maxwell Rep. Judy Warnick SENATE RULES COMMITTEE PROCESS The Rules Committee determines which bills advance to the floor calendar for consideration by the full Senate. There are two calendars in Senate rules. The White Sheet is where bills are sent immediately after being passed out of a standing committee. This is more or less a review calendar. The Green S heet is a consideration calendar made up of bills requested (or "pulled") by Rules members from the White Sheet and is the list of bills eligible to go directly to the floor.
    [Show full text]