By J. Lyn Carl, GalleryWatch.com
Austin, TX – New leadership. New faces. New Republican majority. New Texas.
Same old House.
Everything prior to the 78th Legislature pointed to a legislative session that would be history-making. Some said it could turn out to be the best session ever. Others said it could be the worst.
The House of Representatives is doing its part to see that if nothing else, the session is one that will go down in history as unforgettable.
After a second day of debate on HB 4, legislation that provides for sweeping tort reform, the House came grinding to a halt when Rep. Jim Dunnam (D-Waco) offered a point of order mid-afternoon of Thursday's debate on the more than 300 amendments to the bill.
A point of order is not unusual. There had already been several offered during the debate. But this one was a bit unusual. It included a sworn affidavit by another member of the House that alleged a private meeting to discuss legislation among enough members of the House Civil Practices Committee to constitute a quorum. It included a screen shot of an Internet video of a House committee to show those members and a transcript of the audio of the hearing in which those members were invited to an ante-room following the official committee hearing.
After nearly an hour of discussion, House Speaker Tom Craddick returned to the speaker's podium and asked members to take their seats. He noted a "very significant" question had been raised by Dunnam's point of order. The point of order "goes to the fundamental operation of the House," said Craddick. Dunnam alleges that the House Civil Practices Committee held an "improper, closed meeting," said the speaker.
"Because of the constitutional significance of this issue," said Craddick, "the chair submits the point of order to the House" to decide if the point of order should be sustained.
Craddick's decision set off a firestorm on the House floor. Rep. Paul Moreno (D-El Paso) told the speaker he had been out in the hallway and was not aware of what ruling had been made on the point of order. Craddick began offering his explanation, and Moreno again questioned if the speaker had indeed ruled on the point of order. Unable to make his point with Moreno as to why he did not make a ruling, Craddick offered to make a copy for Moreno of the statement he read before Moreno arrived on the floor. That prompted Moreno to ask for a personal privilege speech.
"We better settle down and start thinking," said Moreno. "Look at the confusion that is being caused by both sides. I know that some of you Republicans are also as confused as some of those on the Democratic side. I have been involved in this rulemaking process for many, many years with the man holding the gavel behind me (Craddick). He and I went through this process under the Dirty Thirty to clear up messes like this.
"The man behind me knows how this House used to operate and how rules were violated. They had secret meetings. We finally corrected all these procedures to a point that I thought we had some form of democracy. I know that what has happened is because the powers of this state have now banned together and have confused many, many people."
Moreno said the two bills combined to make HB 4 should likely be in no fewer than 20 bills. "There are too many subjects in this bill," he said.
"We must have a referee. We have to get a ruling from the man holding the gavel. That is why he was elected - so he could make the tough decisions. We cannot let the insurance business in this country run the House."
Rep. Harold Dutton (D-Houston) questioned the speaker's not making a rule on the point of order, with Rep. Beverly Woolley (R-Houston) reading from the House rules regarding when the speaker can invite the House membership to decide the question. She noted the rules allow the speaker to turn the question over to the House membership in unusual circumstances.
"The chair determined this is a procedural point of order," said Woolley. She noted, however, that Dunnam's allegation that the committee held a closed session is constitutionally prohibited.
Woolley said both sides raised "serious, legitimate issues...and the chair was of the opinion that the ruling could be sustained or overruled and thus should be decided by the House." That, she said, provided the unusual circumstance.
She said the chair did not make finding of fact as to whether or not the alleged meeting was secret or unlawful, but accepted "at face value" Ms. Davis' statement. Rep. Yvonne Davis (D-Dallas), a member of the Civil Practices committee, provided the sworn affidavit regarding the alleged improper meeting that is part of Dunnam's point of order.
Woolley said the membership of the House should, by majority vote, decided if Dunnam's point of order should be sustained. Dutton questioned if there would be two votes - one to override the constitution and one to decide the fate of the point of order. She said it is a matter of order, not of overriding the constitution.
"The chair has not suggested the suspension of the constitutional rule," said Craddick finally.
Based on allegations of procedural violations and possible constitutional violations, Rep. Rene Oliveira (D-Brownsville) asked the speaker if the members involved in the alleged violation would have the right to vote in the process of determining the fate of the point of order.
"Every member has the right to vote unless the House limits that," said Craddick.
"This is not a procedural point of order," said Oliveira, noting those members would be voting on whether their own actions were improper.
That issue was discussed at length and then Rep. Joe Nixon (R-Houston), author of HB 4, asked to be recognized for a motion to recommit. Craddick denied the motion, noting that the point of order issue had not been resolved yet.
Rep. Senfronia Thompson asked to divide the issue into the constitutional question on violation of the Open Meetings Act as well as the procedural question relative to House rules. She suggested that the speaker decide the procedural issue and the House should decide the other.
House leadership and the House parliamentarian huddled at length again and at approximately 6:15 p.m., Craddick announced he was sustaining the point of order.
The bill was returned to committee. The House Civil Practices Committee met on the floor following the House floor action and voted the bill out again as substituted.