by service on many committees. Meetings must often be scheduled at inconvenient hours and conflicts occur constantly. Amid such circumstances a reduction in number through combination and elimination becomes the first condition of reform. To cite extreme examples: the Iowa House has sixty-one committees, ranging in size from nine to forty members, membership on eight being the minimum for any one representative. In addition to a committee on agriculture of thirty-nine members there are committees on dairy and food, animal industry, drainage, horticulture, and agricultural college. There are nine dealing with different phases of education, in addition to one on educational institutions with twelve members, and one on schools and text books with twenty-eight members.1 The Kansas House has fifty-five committees. In addition to several useless ones, such as federal relations and immigration, there are six dealing with subjects which could more easily be handled by the committee on agriculture, six dealing with matters of education and five with municipal affairs.14 The Michigan Senate with thirty-two members has sixty-two committees, fifteen of which could be grouped under one on education.15 The Kentucky House boasts seventy committees, each member serving on six, and in Georgia members serve on an average of nine. Although, as has been stated, these examples are somewhat extreme, Pennsylvania's average of five places per member is typical of the vast majority of states. Such an endless multiplication of committees would of course be impossible if it were not that the burden of work is confined to a few of the more important while others meet but irregularly throughout the session. Everywhere the committees on appropriations, judiciary, and municipal affairs will be found crowded with work. Of less importance, although with plenty to do, will be found committees dealing with agriculture, banking, county affairs, education, corporations, railroads, fish and game, and roads and bridges. Then follow the committees whose work is almost negligible. It has been stated by members of experience that twenty-three of the forty-one committees of the Pennsylvania House are of no importance and could readily be abolished. Of the thirty-eight com13 House Rules for 1915. 14 Rules for 1915. 15 Rules for 1915. mittees of the Ohio House of 1915, there were sixteen which considered less than ten bills each out of a total of nine hundred and twelve introduced.16 In the session of the same year twelve committees of the Vermont House, eleven of the Senate, and six joint committees, received less than ten bills each.17 Evidently some readjustment is needed. A few committees are overwhelmed; others never meet. On the other hand, the distribution of business among the joint committees in Massachusetts is much more equitable, only seven of the thirty in a recent session receiving less than forty bills.18 Vermont attempted reform at the 1917 session by combining sixteen committees into seven, but no attempt was made to relieve the more congested. In Wisconsin the reform has been worked out to its logical conclusions. Senate standing committees have been reduced to five with no member serving on more than one, and the number in the House which consider legislation is now fifteen with a total of but 112 places for 100 members.19 In Rhode Island, also, members serve as a rule on but one committee. The advantages of the plan are obvious. Each committee becomes an important part in the legislative system, performing a decent amount of the legislative business. Full attendance at meetings is possible because members are not bothered by conflicting committee schedules, and chairmen do not have to exert themselves to secure a quorum.20 In those states where capitol space is limited the simple matter of finding rooms for a multitude of meetings is serious, preventing a committee from enjoying permanent quarters.21 While under a system of few committees there would still be degrees of importance; and experience and capacity would still be rewarded by places upon the leading committees, each would have sufficient work to do. Meetings could be held at regularly scheduled hours when members are fresh for the work. By devoting their whole attention to the business of one committee, legislators could become 16 Ohio H. J. 1915, pp. 1947 et seq. 17 Report of Joint Committee, 1917, pp. 6, 7. 18 Report of Joint Committee on Procedure, 1915, p. 36. 19 S. Rule 20; H. Rule 22. This was accomplished at the 1913 session when the number of committees was cut in half. (Ass. J. pp. 98-99.) 20 It is a general complaint that committee meetings are not well attended. Congress has the same difficulty. 21 North Carolina and Vermont report specific difficulty of this kind. specialists along the lines of their service. Committee proceedings would possess weight and dignity, so sadly lacking in our state legislatures, but without which no deliberation can be a success. The opposition to a rearrangement along the lines indicated comes from a desire to multiply honors. Representatives are loath to surrender the prestige and perquisites derived from membership on many committees. The recent progressive wave in the Illinois House spent itself when the number of committees had been reduced from sixty-seven to thirty-three, with each member serving on from five to eight,22 and at the 1915 session of the Kansas Senate a motion to authorize a reduction from forty-one to twenty-one failed without a roll call.23 REFERENCE OF BILLS Upon introduction and before consideration by the House, a bill is referred to a standing committee in whose possession it remains until reported back or until the committee is discharged. Except in rare instances the presiding officer designates which committee shall receive the measure. The rules often permit discussion at this point by providing that the question "Shall the bill be rejected?" may be raised, but this never occurs in practice. Sometimes reference does not take place until after second reading, but in such cases second reading usually follows immediately upon first. Consequently nothing is gained by adherence to an ancient practice observed by Parliament, inasmuch as with us the merits of a bill are no longer debated on second reading and afterwards referred to a committee for review of the details.24 In Arizona and Ohio the bill is printed and on the desks of members before reference.25 When bills are referred by the presiding officer immediately upon introduction they are apt to be distributed more or less at haphazard among the various committees. Thus in Vermont, within a period of three sessions, woman's suffrage bills were sent to committees on municipal corporations, internal affairs, temperance, 22 H. J. 1915, pp. 132–133. 23 S. J. 1915, p. 4. 24 In Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri and Ohio the rules provide for reference after second reading, but as the constitutions require readings to be on separate days, reference is delayed one day after introduction. 25 Arizona House and Senate Rules 9; ́Ohio, House Rule 73 and Hughes' "Parliamentary Guide." judiciary, ways and means and grand list.26 By requiring measures to be filed with the clerk previous to introduction or by allowing a day to intervene between introduction and reference such careless disposition of measures can be avoided. In at least three states the speaker has been deprived of his power of reference. In Ohio and Virginia members of the House designate the committee, and Maine practice, in keeping with her system of joint committees, provides a joint standing committee whose function is to assign bills to the proper committees.27 Permitting a member to specify what committee shall consider his bill robs the speaker of a great deal of control over its fate, for the latter is sure to have at least one committee dominated by his adherents. Even if committees are elected by the house his power is large, since his reference is rarely overruled by contest on the floor. Where joint committees are used as extensively as in Massachusetts and Connecticut the process is a little more involved. Reference by the presiding officer in one house must be confirmed by the other and when such concurrence is refused, it is the usual, although not the invariable practice, for the first house to recede from its position and to pass a resolution agreeing with the new reference. As differences of this sort are quite frequent the reference of the presiding officer is constantly checked up by the other house and his own.28 Formal reference by the speaker before the assembled house consumes valuable time and serves no useful purpose. Members pay no attention to this order of business, practically denying themselves the right to review the action of the speaker. Notice of the reference in the daily journal or calendar is quite sufficient, if opportunity is given to move to revise the speaker's action. The rules of the Virginia House require the clerk to refer bills in accordance with the endorsement of the proponent and to enter the fact on the journal. He is then to prepare a daily list of all bills offered with their patrons and references.29 A member thus learns readily what 26 Memorandum of Vermont Legislative Reference Bureau, 1916. 27 This procedure was adopted as an improvement over the old method of concurrent reference. 28 See Journals of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Maine, as noted above, employs a joint committee on reference. 29 House Rules 7, 37 (1915). Urged by the Massachusetts Joint Committee in its report on the reform of the rules, 1915, p. 33. disposition has been made of his measures, for the general confusion on the floor and the sing-song manner in which reference of bills is carried on precludes even the most diligent from profiting by public announcement. COMMITTEE MEETINGS The efficiency of the committee system may be impaired by inconvenient hours of meeting. Too often the program of the house makes no allowance for the time necessary for the meetings of the committees. As a consequence they frequently are compelled to snatch a few minutes at recess or at the close of the day when all are tired and anxious to get home.30 Although forbidden by the rules, meetings during a sitting of the house are common toward the end of the session. Morning seems to be the best time for committee meetings for then the members are fresh for the most important part of their legislative duties. The customary hour in Massachusetts is 10:30a.m. Members accordingly plan to devote their mornings to committee work, which therefore becomes as regular a part of the routine as the session on the floor. Occasionally meetings are held at night but only in order to clear up a crowded calendar. COMMITTEE SCHEDULES A sine qua non of effective committee work is the maintenance of a fixed schedule of meetings, which should be arranged by a responsible person and to which members should strictly adhere. The practice of drawing up a loose schedule at an informal conference of several chairmen provokes conflicts and ends in holding meetings whenever a quorum can be gotten together. Moreover, if choice of time is left to the convenience of the individual members, meetings are most numerous in mid-week, with the consequence that the house calendar is crowded on three days a week with bills reported out, but light on other days. Stated sessions of committees would go far towards keeping each day's business uniform.31 Furthermore, adherence to a fixed schedule, permitting special meetings only after one day's notice, removes the old evils of "snap meetings.” 30 Discussed in the Bulletin of the Nebraska Bureau, Procedure in the Forty-eight States, p. 17. In Arizona sessions frequently convene to insure presence of members and recess immediately for committee work. 31 Recommended by the Vermont Special Committee, 1917. |
