The terms meeting and session are often confused. Although used synonymously, their meanings are different but overlapping. The usage of the words varies between the legislative body and what parliamentarians call the ordinary deliberative assembly, which is everything else.
When most folks think of session, they are referring to a legislative body. In Texas, a regular session is held at the beginning of every odd-numbered year and lasts 140 days. Since 1989, there have been 18 special sessions called by the governor. Congress holds a new session each year, because Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution states "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year . . ." Special sessions for Congress can be called by the president; however, these are rare, having occurred only 27 times (the last one was in 1948, called by President Truman).
What is known as a meeting in ordinary assemblies is called a day in the legislature. A legislative session is made up of a number of days and there is a set order of business for each day. This would be simple enough except that there are legislative days and there are calendar days -- an esoteric denotation that only a legislative body could appreciate. It is the general belief in all legislative bodies that the pursuit of order is best achieved through tortuous complexity. So it is with the telling of time. If a recess occurs at the end of a legislative day, the recess does not end the legislative day but only provides a break in the order of business. On the next calendar day after some opening ceremonies, the legislative day picks up where it left off at the recess. It seems that legislatures are like God when it comes to time. “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (1 Pet 3:8). With legislatures, a legislative day is like a thousand calendar days . . . well, I hope you get the point. A legislative day is understood to be the conduct of business from adjournment to adjournment. A calendar day is understood to be the continuance of a legislative day following a recess, so that there can be a number of calendar days before the adjournment of the legislative day.
In a legislative body, the word meeting is only used to denote a convening of a committee. To refer to a session of a committee makes no sense, even to the layperson. When a committee adjourns, the committee meeting comes to an end. Thus, a meeting of a legislative committee is synonymous with a legislative day for the full body.
A legislative body that meets continuously for days, weeks, and months is holding one session. A bill introduced at the beginning or middle of this period is pending as long as the session continues. Each legislative day, the legislature convenes and adjourns. The bills introduced on previous days are still pending either on a calendar or in committee (or in the case of the House of Commons, they may be laying on the clerk's table). Once the session comes to an end, however, all pending bills fall to the floor, and must be reintroduced at the next legislative session if they are to retain life.
In ordinary assemblies, these terms are less confusing but not entirely clear. A day for an ordinary assembly is a calendar day. It begins at 12 midnight and ends at 12 midnight. This is straightforward – no strange clockwork here. A session for an ordinary assembly is basically the carrying out of a single agenda or order of business. A meeting is a single sitting of the assembly, that is not separated by an adjournment though it may be separated by a recess. Adjourning always ends a meeting, while a recess allows a short break before continuing the meeting. (Thus, a meeting of an ordinary assembly is synonymous with a legislative day for a legislative body).
When a society or board meets, it is common practice to prepare a new agenda. Meetings are typically separated by a week, a month, or a quarter interval and it makes perfect sense to start with a new agenda. A new agenda initiates a session. Most societies and boards complete the agenda before adjourning. For this reason, a session is typically a one-day meeting. Thus, in the case where an agenda is completed in one meeting, the duration of the meeting and the session are identical. Though it appears in this case that the terms meeting and session are synonymous, they are not. This is a source of confusion. It must be remembered that a session for an ordinary assembly is the consideration of a given agenda or order of business. It usually can be accomplished with one meeting, though additional meetings may be necessary.
Now, let’s examine a case where an ordinary assembly holds several meetings in close sequence. When ordinary assemblies hold a convention lasting a day or more, this constitutes one session. Many organizations refer to each convention meeting as a separate session (e.g., opening session, second session, and closing session). These are not actually sessions, but are individual meetings within a session. A convention agenda usually includes the items of business for the entire set of meetings. A new agenda is not adopted at the beginning of each day, but rather one agenda is adopted on the first day covering all the days. Thus, a multi-day convention is one session of several meetings, and one set of minutes can be drafted to cover the entire session. Sometimes, a large break takes place within the day so that the morning, afternoon, and evening sittings are actually individual meetings. Each such meeting should be concluded by adjourning, as the only proper way to end a meeting.
In legislative bodies, a bill cannot carry over from one session to another, but must be reintroduced. In ordinary assemblies, however, there are four ways that an item of business can carry over from session to session:
• The item is postponed to the next meeting (using the motion to Postpone to a Definite Time)
• The item is referred to a committee (using the motion to Commit/Refer)
• The item is laid upon the table (using the motion to Lay Upon The Table)
• The meeting/session adjourns before completing the agenda, and the business that was pending at adjournment becomes the first item business at the next meeting/session under Unfinished Business, followed by the items of business that were on the agenda but not considered before adjournment
There are two peculiarities known as special sessions and the adjourned meeting. Just as a legislature can have a special session, so can the ordinary assembly. As with the legislature, there are special procedures for calling a special session and only the articles or items mentioned in the call can be considered.
A society or board that normally completes its agenda in a single sitting may encounter a volume of timely business that cannot be completed in a single sitting. To complete the agenda, an adjourned meeting can be established. An adjourned meeting is the continuation of a session through the scheduling of a second meeting. This is accomplished by Fixing the Time To Which to Adjourn. As all good parliamentarians know, one should not end a sentence with a preposition. For the sake of comprehension, this motion could be stated as "Fixing the Time to Adjourn To." Basically, it sets up the continuation of the session by establishing another meeting. It can be moved by saying "I move that on adjournment, we adjourn to meet next Tuesday at the same time." The second meeting will pick up consideration at the point on the agenda where the first meeting left off. Thus, the two meetings will constitute one session.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Monday, December 7, 2009
Dressage Makes Good Procedure
Last week, I served the United States Dressage Federation at their annual convention. Dressage is about horses, of course - especially, the English saddle type (as opposed to the stock or Western saddle). The USDF represents all those people who live in the saddle and around horses - breeders, competitors, judges, trainers, and equestrianists - and who promote the sport of dressage. They also represent all those magnificent horses under the care of USDF members.
Now, people who devote a large proportion of their free time working with horses must be a virtuous sort. Horses, in my opinion, are the second smartest animal, but they are by far the most graceful of all. This is an interesting combination. In dressage, the smartest animal rides and directs the second smartest animal. So far, so good. The contradiction is that an animal like man may have great potential to be graceful, but is not naturally so like the horse. Thus, a less graceful animal rides the most graceful animal. The question is who is directing whom when it comes to gracefulness in dressage? To me, it seems that it may be the rider who is trying to measure up to the horse.
In parliamentary procedure, we often see the animal man in his less graceful nature. When I first arrived at the USDF convention, several delegates apologized to me in advance for the anticipated behavior of the convention. Turns out that last year was a somewhat contentious one. I often get these pre-apologies at conventions. It seems that those who wish to hire a parliamentarian are aware that their organization can benefit from an improvement in order and decorum. People are essentially people, however, and my experience has been that behavior in the deliberative assembly does not vary much from organization to organization.
So it was with USDF. The convention went quite well from my perspective and it was what I expected from such a group. The knowledge level of the participants was high on equestrianism and low on procedure. (No surprise here, that the delegates would know more about something they do on a daily basis versus something they do once a year). Many important decisions were made and it appeared that everyone was pleased with the results. As parliamentarians, we cannot ask for more. I was able to help an important and fruitful organization take important steps in governance over a two day period. The delegates, officers, and staff returned home to do something much more important than motions, debate, and voting. The quality of USDF is measured by what is done in the stable and the arena, not at the convention.
Still there are hypothetical questions that are floating in my clever mind. If dressage is the graceful movement of horse and rider, and if the rider is more graceful on the horse in the arena than on foot in the convention, should horses be included in the convention? Or, even more hypothetically, should the horse be a delegate? Would parliamentary procedure improve in either case?
The latter case is out. A group of horses convened in a large room would behave better than people, for sure. There would certainly be less of a need to call the horses to order for being too noisy or for chatting. Unfortunately, horses have a unique disability when it comes to voting, being able to respond only in the negative. A chorus of "Nays" would be the limited response. The great satirist, Jonathan Swift, would have been able to expound upon the ability of horses in the deliberative arena. Readers of Gulliver's Travels will remember the land of the Houyhnhnms where horses were the superior creature. It was a decision of the Houyhnhnm Grand Assembly that forced Gulliver to return to miserable England. I am sure the decision was made by a majority vote of a quorum after reasonable debate, but Swift omitted such details.
The case of requiring delegates to be in the saddle is intriguing. In general, do people behave better on a horse? With USDF, I think the delegates would have admitted so. With any other organization, we would be better served to teach delegates parliamentary procedure than to teach them how to ride a horse, at least in terms of getting through a convention. I have tried to imagine the USDF convention with horse and rider serving as one. A few things would go more smoothly. A standing vote or division could be cleanly accomplished. "All those in favor please move to the right of the arena, and all those opposed please move to the left."
Let me end on a serious note. There are strong connections between the art of dressage and the art of parliamentary procedure. When the rules are followed in either discipline, the results are better. Dressage has its movements and parliamentary procedure has its motions. Both come from a long history of tradition. Both require much practice if proficiency is to be acquired. Dressage teaches us a valuable lesson. If participants in the deliberative assembly were to behave as if they were executing movements in the equestrian arena, things would go much smoother. In his heart, every parliamentarian should appreciate the art of dressage.
Now, people who devote a large proportion of their free time working with horses must be a virtuous sort. Horses, in my opinion, are the second smartest animal, but they are by far the most graceful of all. This is an interesting combination. In dressage, the smartest animal rides and directs the second smartest animal. So far, so good. The contradiction is that an animal like man may have great potential to be graceful, but is not naturally so like the horse. Thus, a less graceful animal rides the most graceful animal. The question is who is directing whom when it comes to gracefulness in dressage? To me, it seems that it may be the rider who is trying to measure up to the horse.
In parliamentary procedure, we often see the animal man in his less graceful nature. When I first arrived at the USDF convention, several delegates apologized to me in advance for the anticipated behavior of the convention. Turns out that last year was a somewhat contentious one. I often get these pre-apologies at conventions. It seems that those who wish to hire a parliamentarian are aware that their organization can benefit from an improvement in order and decorum. People are essentially people, however, and my experience has been that behavior in the deliberative assembly does not vary much from organization to organization.
So it was with USDF. The convention went quite well from my perspective and it was what I expected from such a group. The knowledge level of the participants was high on equestrianism and low on procedure. (No surprise here, that the delegates would know more about something they do on a daily basis versus something they do once a year). Many important decisions were made and it appeared that everyone was pleased with the results. As parliamentarians, we cannot ask for more. I was able to help an important and fruitful organization take important steps in governance over a two day period. The delegates, officers, and staff returned home to do something much more important than motions, debate, and voting. The quality of USDF is measured by what is done in the stable and the arena, not at the convention.
Still there are hypothetical questions that are floating in my clever mind. If dressage is the graceful movement of horse and rider, and if the rider is more graceful on the horse in the arena than on foot in the convention, should horses be included in the convention? Or, even more hypothetically, should the horse be a delegate? Would parliamentary procedure improve in either case?
The latter case is out. A group of horses convened in a large room would behave better than people, for sure. There would certainly be less of a need to call the horses to order for being too noisy or for chatting. Unfortunately, horses have a unique disability when it comes to voting, being able to respond only in the negative. A chorus of "Nays" would be the limited response. The great satirist, Jonathan Swift, would have been able to expound upon the ability of horses in the deliberative arena. Readers of Gulliver's Travels will remember the land of the Houyhnhnms where horses were the superior creature. It was a decision of the Houyhnhnm Grand Assembly that forced Gulliver to return to miserable England. I am sure the decision was made by a majority vote of a quorum after reasonable debate, but Swift omitted such details.
The case of requiring delegates to be in the saddle is intriguing. In general, do people behave better on a horse? With USDF, I think the delegates would have admitted so. With any other organization, we would be better served to teach delegates parliamentary procedure than to teach them how to ride a horse, at least in terms of getting through a convention. I have tried to imagine the USDF convention with horse and rider serving as one. A few things would go more smoothly. A standing vote or division could be cleanly accomplished. "All those in favor please move to the right of the arena, and all those opposed please move to the left."
Let me end on a serious note. There are strong connections between the art of dressage and the art of parliamentary procedure. When the rules are followed in either discipline, the results are better. Dressage has its movements and parliamentary procedure has its motions. Both come from a long history of tradition. Both require much practice if proficiency is to be acquired. Dressage teaches us a valuable lesson. If participants in the deliberative assembly were to behave as if they were executing movements in the equestrian arena, things would go much smoother. In his heart, every parliamentarian should appreciate the art of dressage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
