The House Rules Committee

The House Rules Committee takes original ownership of all legislation. Yesterday, we met and recommended that some bills go straight to the House floor for consideration (and possible passage) by the whole House. Those bills passed out of interim committees unanimously. And, we recommended that some bills go to standing committees, where the committee chairs can determine whether the bills will receive a hearing (and debate, amendment, referral to the House floor or – rarely – death).

Committees aren’t killing bills (now, watch, to prove me wrong, all my bills will die in committee). Nor are bills being killed on the floor. When they are, they quickly become zombie bills, coming back from the dead on a motion to reconsider after the sponsor has successfully begged enough colleagues to “just let it advance in the system.”

So, each chamber shovels garbage forward to the other chamber, counting on the other to kill it. And, even then, most bills are killed by the clock (when we constitutionally turn into pumpkins at midnight on the 45th day), rather than by an actual vote. This is a bad practice. To do its part, I plan for the House Rules Committee to more aggressively filter out bills that we deem don’t have a shot at actual passage. And – as you can imagine – we’ll catch all sorts of grief for being oppressive thugs.

To gauge that criticism, let me explain how the process will work. Believing that committees work best when each member is empowered, I have distributed many of the Chair’s prerogatives to the 7 other members of the committee. (We have 6 Republicans and 2 Democrats). Each member can nominate an equal number of bills to each recommendation list we send to the whole body for its approval. However, a majority of the Rules Committee members must agree with those recommendations.

Thus, there are two steps to successfully navigate the House Rules Committee. First, members of the House need to find a Rules Committee member (any Rules Committee member) who will add his/her bill to the list. And, remember, each member, including the Chair, has an equal number of nominations. Second, each Rules Committee member must work with the other 7 members to make sure his/her recommendations will have majority support in the Rules Committee. If a particular bill doesn’t have majority support, the Rules Committee member should tell the bill sponsor to work with the members of the Rules Committee and the Rules Committee member should nominate a different bill.

People will mostly decide the effectiveness of this approach by the fate of the bill(s) they favor, but it is the most open, democratized procedure the Committee has ever used. Rep. Hendrickson suggested that we close the House Rules Committee. I discussed that suggestion with the other committee members, and it’s not going to happen. I’m a proponent of more openness in government, but I don’t think that Rep. Hendrickson or the Democrats should be pilloried for raising the issue for discussion.

An argument could be made that a closed process would work better for the minority party. (Not MY argument, mind you, but AN argument). In general, there isn’t as much partisan friction in the Utah Legislature as the Media might have you believe. Democrats have some very effective members; like every member of the Legislature, they simply understand that a majority of votes is needed at every step in the process; and they put legislation in a form that it can receive that support. If a Rules Committee member doesn’t do his/her homework with the other members of the Committee, to determine whether majority support exists, the bill simply will be removed from the list. A more candid exchange and, yes, horse trading and deal making could produce a less-blunt outcome. In a closed meeting, members are more likely to say, “C’mon. You know that bill is not ready and doesn’t have a prayer of passing the Legislature and will only take time away from bills that have a shot. What do you want that might have a prayer?”

It’s exciting to be back in the Capitol. I am optimistic that the Rules Committee will do a good job of serving the House and the people of the State.