Members split on whether committee should start with governance issues or drafted amendment language

Committee members engaged in an extended debate over process design: should the committee begin reviews by accepting submitted draft amendment language and then identify governance implications, or should it first define the governance problem and only then craft amendment language? Supporters of the governance-first approach argued it helps the committee evaluate whether an issue belongs in the charter at all, while supporters of starting with submitted language said many proponents already deliver concrete drafts that the committee must consider and revise.

Legal counsel Elaine urged a big-picture approach: "if you start with the amendment which is pretty much already narrowed down and then trying to backtrack it out to say, hey, does this meet the big picture," you may lose the opportunity to consider alternative remedies. The committee ultimately adopted a framework that incorporates both practices by asking proponents to complete a worksheet and by directing the committee to determine the governance issue as a step in the review process.