►
From YouTube: Senate Rules Meeting, March 30, 2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
D
Mr
president,
thank
you
and
thank
you
committee
for
hearing
this.
I
want
to
thank
senator
driscoll
for
being
on
this
bill.
I
think
it's
a
a
bill
that
it's
a
good
bill.
D
We
brought
it
for
four
years
or
more
quite
often,
it's
gotten
over
to
our
house
and
and
hasn't
had
very
good
luck,
but
the
main
reason
I'm
bringing
the
bill-
and
I
think
that
we
have
for
so
long
is
I'm
bringing
it
to
kind
of
correlate
with
the
house
rules
2-3
and
I'm
guessing
that
the
senate
has
a
rule
that
states
the
same
that
committee.
D
Memberships,
memberships
on
committees
shall
be
apportioned
as
nearly
as
possible
to
reflect
the
percentage
of
elected
membership
of
the
majority
and
minorities
of
the
house,
and
so
that's
why
I've
always
brought
it.
I
just
I
really
thought
that
we
weren't
we
weren't
following
that
that
rule,
and
so
I
bring
you
this
again
bring
it
to
you.
I
can
go
through
the
bill,
but
I
think
most
of
you
have
read
it
for
sure.
A
D
Agree,
thank
you,
mr
president,
just
to
go
through
it
really
quick
with
the
amendment
that
was
made
by
our
majority
floor
leader.
It
takes
the
number
of
members
on
the
council
down
from
13
to
10.,
and
it
also
the
another
big
item
that
it
does.
With
that
amendment
is
the
chairmanship
would
change
every
year.
It
would
rotate
from
one
house
to
the
other.
D
I'm
not
sure
if,
if
I
don't
know
what
your
thoughts
would
be
on
that,
but
that's
what
the
amendment
did
and
the
so
you
have
the
four
that
on
each
in
each
house
that
will
be
on
the
council
for
sure
the
of
the
leadership
the
minority
leadership
will
be
there
and
then
that
the
at-large
member
will
be
voted
upon
by
the
by
the
whole
body.
A
D
D
E
Thank
you,
sherman
representative.
I
do
have
some
questions
one
and,
and
they
come
down
to
kind
of
motivation
of
of
what
the
objectives
are
for
what
you
consider
to
be
a
an
appropriately
staffed
up
management
council.
If
that
makes
sense,
and
the
first
one
that
you
noted
was
shall
be
apportioned
as
nearly
as
possible,
which
is
pursuant
to
our
rules
based
on
party
split.
E
Is
there
anything
else
that
that
you
see
is
as
being
an
important
part
of
the
makeup
of
the
committee
that
we
should
contemplate
as
we're
we're?
Looking
at
this.
D
Mr
president,
thank
you
thank
you.
I
I
really
not.
I
don't
think
I
do.
I
really
think
just
the
apportionment
is
is
what
I
was
dealing
with.
What
I
thought
was
the
most
important
is
party
split.
Okay,.
E
Mr
chairman
follow-up
question:
what
about
mission
we've
got?
We
do
have
the
other
piece
of
legislation
that
I
think
is
over
in
your
world.
I
don't
know
what,
where
what
it's
standing
is
but
kind
of
getting
at
the
role
of
management
council,
and
I
think
senator
hicks
is
prime
on
that
that
that
looks
at
at
what
it's
supposed
to
do
and
narrows
that
down.
Was
there
any
discussion
and
this
kind
of
gets
to
the
number
as
well,
which
we've
got
that
change?
E
What
do
we
want
out
of
the
management
council
and
how
many
people
are
needed
to
accomplish
whatever
it
is?
We
want
out
of
the
management
council.
D
E
And
one
more
follow-up
on
that
and
just
to
explore
that
why?
What
do
you
want
those
other
members
to
accomplish,
and
I'm
really
just
trying
to
probe
objectives
here
and
and
if,
if
10
is
enough,
is
eight
enough
and
if
10's
not
enough
and
we
need
13?
What
do
we
expect
from
those
other
three
that
the
10
can't
accomplish.
D
Mr
president,
I
don't
know
how
to
answer
that.
I
just
kind
of
wonder
at
times
if,
if
those
that
aren't
involved
in
the
leadership
might
have
a
different
opinion,
I
think
from
from
what
the
members
are
supposed
to
do.
If
they
are
there
currently
to
to
manage
the
lso,
mainly
I
think
during
when
we're
out
of
session
and
statute
and
and
then
I
think
we
are
going
to
deal
with
other
topics
in
this
other
bill,
and
I
have
to
tell
you,
I
haven't
read
it
yet,
but.
A
A
F
I
have
a
proposed
amendment
but
I'd
like
some
clarification
from
our
lso
staff
if
they
would,
if
we
move
the
effective
date
under
section
three
to
july
first
of
2021,
do
we
really
need
section?
Two
does
section
two
have
any
bearings.
G
Over
mr
chairman,
it
won't,
if
you
make
it
effective
immediately,
yeah
july
1st,
the
the
section
two
only
provided
for
clarity
on
who
would
be
the
chairman,
starting
on
the
effective
date
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
president,
go
ahead,
but
you
would
be,
mr
chairman,
if
you
did,
that
you
would
be
effectively
cutting
off
chairman
docsteader's
chairmanship
of
management
council
by
a
year,
so
clarification
that
would
be
it'll,
be
one.
F
F
Let's
see,
let's,
when
you're
gonna
have
to
strike
the
calendar.
G
I
F
F
A
F
F
So
you
would
be,
mr
president,
it
would
retain
the
current
chairman
of
management
council
through
this
calendar
and
then
it
would
switch
back
to
what
the
bill
does
is
switch
it
every
other
year
now,
okay,
and
so
it
would
be
consistent
with
the
with
the
bill.
D
I
I
don't
know
if
it
will
or
not.
Mr
chairman,
I'm
sorry
I
don't
know.
J
E
Ahead,
mr
so
just
to
be
clear,
the
the
amendment
is
trying
to
ask
three
members
of
the
management
council
before
the
end
of
this
legislature.
Is
that
correct,
prior
to
the
next
day,
as
drafted,
the
the
bill
basically
makes
it
so
that
in
the
next
legislature
the
67th,
the
new
policies
would
apply.
So
it's
a
new
appointment,
new
people
and-
and
it
wouldn't
apply
to
this-
as
I
understand
it,
based
on
my
reading
and
the
representatives
nodding.
E
F
Well,
mr
president,
you
could,
I
think,
the
net
effect
of
is,
as
we
bring
the
bill
into
its
effective
july
1st,
which
has
the
effect
that
I
think
that
the
minority
floor
leader
described.
Is
this
you're
going
to
have
a
reduction
of
three
members?
Now?
I
think
it's
presumptuous
to
say
that
it
would
be
a
reduction
of
three
members
of
the
the
minority
party,
because
the
way
the
bill
is
structured
is
then,
you
would
have
to
go
back
and
have
an
election
of
the
both
bodies
of
the
whole.
E
E
I
guess
it
would
be
again
as
we
pass
a
law.
We
can
effectively
override
the
number
of
people
that
are
on
there,
but
in
our
rules
and-
and
you
could
add
language
that
I
think
would
cover
this,
but
I
think
you
might
have
to
to
come
up
with
a
and
the
first
time
it
will
go
through
this
process
because
nobody
has
the
authority
actually
to
remove
somebody
outside
of
the
legislative
session
from
being
a
member
of
a
committee.
E
A
Let's
look
at
what
are
the
advantages:
switching
out
house
and
senate
every
year
for
the
chairmanship
by
trying
to
decide
what
the
advantages
of
that
versus
two
years
to
your
turn,
to
your
turn,
chairman.
I
E
Go
ahead
on
on
that
point,
this
probably
moves
us
in
the
right
direction
for
that,
in
my
opinion,
because
you,
when
you
get
to
the
presidency
and
someone
gets
to
a
speakership,
it's
it's
just
by
luck,
whether
or
not
you're
the
chair
of
the
vice
chair,
and
I
think
that's
what
the
house's
thought
was.
Each
each
of
the
presiding
officers
should
serve.
D
E
E
E
There
are
changes
that
I
would
certainly
support
and
others
that
I
might
not,
but
stepping
back
and
just
looking
at
the
appropriate
way
to
do
it.
It
seems
to
me
that
severing
people
from
the
committee
I
know,
you've
got
three
no
votes
between
the
two
chambers
at
that
point
in
time,
maybe
more,
since
nobody
knows
who's
going
off
at
the
end
of
the
day.
It's
it's.
E
It's
a
pretty
hard
sell
to
say
you
know
it's
a
roulette
game
where
we're
gonna,
we're
gonna
have
to
end
a
few
of
you
and
we
typically
do
try
and
make
these
decisions
out
in
the
future
so
that
we
don't
upset
the.
K
Thank
you,
I'm
against
you,
man
understand
it
understand
exactly
what
the
maker
of
the
amendment
is
trying
to
do,
but
I
think
that,
while
not
too
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
the
bill,
I
just
think
I
don't
think
it
violates
any
rules
to
do
it.
This
way,
except
the
rules
of
class
thanks.
F
F
A
E
When
the
folks
that
drafted
this-
and
we
know
those
folks,
we
served
with
some
of
those
folks-
you
know
john
patton
was
among
them.
E
But
if
we're
not
going
to
go
with
parody,
which
I
understand
nobody
likes
parody
going
with
apportionment
as
proposed
is
at
least
rational
and
justifiable.
I
I
still
think
it's
better
to
have
as
close
to
parity
as
possible,
so
that
the
decisions
of
what
is
supposed
to
be
in
a
political
body
remain
apolitical.
E
If
we
had
standard
standing
committees
of
members
of
five,
that's
what
you
see
over
on
the
right
hand,
side
and
of
this
little
chart,
which
shows
the
break
point
at
which
you
would
go
with
two
members
of
the
minority
party.
E
Instead
of
one
right
now,
we're
in
the
senate,
regrettably
still
way
down
at
the
bottom
end
of
that
where,
where
one
is
the
appropriate
number
in
terms
of
pro-rata
share,
but
once
you
get
to
what
is
effectively
looks
like
nine
members
of
the
minority
in
the
in
the
senate,
which
would
be
18
members
in
the
house,
it's
appropriate
to
switch
to
two
members
as
representation
of
a
five-member
board
and
you've
got
the
the
appropriate
numbers
for
six
and
seven
as
well,
based
on
just
percentages,
and
that's
not.
E
E
So
if
the
objective
is
truly
to
try
and
do
a
proportionate
representation
of
those
that
are
in
the
legislature
and
I'll
back
up
and
say,
the
legislature
is
not
a
proportionate
representation
of
the
state.
We've
had
this
conversation
before
25
of
the
state
voted
d,
75-ish
voted
r,
so
we
already
have
an
election
system,
which
I
don't
hear
any
advocacy
for
trying
to
get
changed
to
the
point
where
we
have
appropriate
apportionment
in
the
legislature.
E
E
A
F
Chairman
anyone
wants
just
for
the
the
sake
of
discussion,
so
when
I
do
the
math
based
on
the
chart,
it
actually
wouldn't
be
nine
members
in
the
minority.
It
would
be
10
unless
you
want
to
round
down
and
round
up.
I
don't
know
how
you
split:
half
of
a
legislature
based
on
this
with
the
proposed
of
five
members,
is
1.5.
I
L
F
F
I
don't
know
what
that
discussion
was
about,
and
then
here's
the
thing
that
I
think
that
we
need
to
take
under
consideration.
If
we
wanted
to
you
know
there
was
always
an
opportunity.
This
bill
has
been
before
us
three
years
now
and
for
three
years
I
think
the
minority
party
known
it's
out
there
and
they've
never
brought
an
alternative
with
a
proposal
for
apportionment,
so
we're
left
to
dispose
this
decision
based
on
the
bill
that
we
have
before
us
today,
not
an
alternative,
because
the
alternative
was
never
brought,
never
proposed.
F
E
E
So
the
idea
that
I
haven't
been
willing
to
work
is,
I
don't
think
accurate.
It's
just.
The
same
speech
was
given
last
time,
which
is
pound
sand.
So
apparently
it
wasn't
a
very
moving
speech
that
I
gave
for
you
to
remember
it
all.
Over
12.