Ignoring the content issue, which is vitally important, this raises a
point on procedure which seems worthy of note:

On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, KR wrote:
>
> I just do not see how our UTC faculty can function as a "committee of the
> whole."  Maybe in the old days of the University of Chattanooga such a
> luxury was possible...  but...  in my opinion, for whatever one person's
> opinion may be worth, we absolutely must give credence to the dedicated
> work and recommendations of our colleagues. My understanding of the
> committee system is that is what the committee is supposed to do....
> namely, the work that is impractical for the full body.
  . . .

> How can our UTC faculty function if not by the committee system?
>
> If we are to reject the committee system -- committees composed of our
> colleagues -- what are the alternatives?
>
> I believe in our system of faculty governance.  I believe it works.  I'm
> not certain anarchy is a reasonable alternative.

This can too easily be read to imply a polar opposition between the
"committee of the whole" procedure and the "committee system".  Especially
the reference to anarchy in the last sentence.  My copy of Roberts' Rules
(unfortunately at home now) poses the "Committee of the Whole" procedure
as an option which a representative assembly is free to take from time to
time.

My point is that this is a useful complement to the more rigid pattern of
regular motion/ammendment/vote necessary to move large amounts of
legislation through an assembly.  On issues where there are strong and
divergent feelings I have some personal experience with it which suggests
that it is capable of developing a consensus more readily than the haste
and aggressive manipulation which can arise in the more formal
parliamentary process.  Of course, it is more time-consuming!  But on
vital issues this may be worthwhile.  In the case I am recalling, the
motion to go into committee of the whole included reasonable time limits
on speakers and restricting a second access to the floor until after all
others wanting to speak had spoken.  It may have been necessary to restate
this informal rule about how the chair recognizes speakers, in order to
remind participants that it exists.  But the "Committee of the Whole"
certainly need not be "anarchy".
                                        Carter Pate