Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Procedures topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses meeting procedure norms: "wave reading," unanimous consent and queue order
Summary
Members used a Rules Committee session to ask and clarify assembly practices — when the clerk reads titles ("wave reading"), when to seek unanimous consent, handling the speaker queue, and which rules can be suspended.
The Assembly Rules Committee on Sept. 11 held an informal question-and-answer discussion about assembly meeting procedures, including what counts as "reading" an ordinance, when unanimous consent is appropriate and how the speaking queue should be managed.
Members asked whether reading the title instead of the full ordinance changes notice; committee Chair Christopher Constance and clerk staff said modern practice interprets reading to mean the title or gist of an ordinance. “We need descriptive titles for items because when you read out the name of the title for the public in the room, they should be able to tune into what are we talking about here,” Constance said.
On unanimous consent and recorded votes, Constance described his customary approach: if an item appears likely to be divided, he will not seek unanimous consent; for final approval votes he typically requests a recorded vote so the membership’s positions are recorded. He noted the practice is a custom rather than an absolute legal requirement.
Members also discussed the speaker queue and when higher-order motions (for example, motions to amend or postpone) may be raised. The chair and clerk said the general practice is that the person next in the queue has the floor; interruptions are allowed for procedural points (point of order or information) but not to displace a speaker who already has the floor. “Always aiming towards fairness is the goal of the chair,” Constance said.
Committee members and counsel noted that Assembly Code section 2.30 grants the assembly authority over many procedural rules and that the body may suspend procedural rules (but not statutory notice requirements) as provided in code. Counsel said an ordinance is in draft that will more directly address distinctions between substantive and procedural matters for joint meetings with other entities; committee members said they expect a future conversation on that topic.
The discussion was informal and intended as orientation for newer members; no formal rules changes were voted on at the meeting.
