Shmuel Gerber Posted September 10, 2014 at 01:16 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 01:16 AM I don't know why you all are jumping on Norm for asking this particular question and for not being satisfied with less than fully relevant answers.A request for information is treated like a parliamentary inquiry, and a member does not need to obtain the floor before saying, "Mr. President, I have a request for information." When the president responds, "The member will state his question," the member then asks the question, but still has not been assigned the floor (in the full sense of that term).If the member wishes to be assigned the floor so as to be in a position to give any speech or make any motion that is in order at the time, he should seek recognition in the normal way, by rising when no other member has the floor and saying, "Mr. President!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 10, 2014 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 02:35 AM I don't know why you all are jumping on Norm for asking this particular question and for not being satisfied with less than fully relevant answers.A request for information is treated like a parliamentary inquiry, and a member does not need to obtain the floor before saying, "Mr. President, I have a request for information." When the president responds, "The member will state his question," the member then asks the question, but still has not been assigned the floor (in the full sense of that term).If the member wishes to be assigned the floor so as to be in a position to give any speech or make any motion that is in order at the time, he should seek recognition in the normal way, by rising when no other member has the floor and saying, "Mr. President!"Not that I disagree with what you said, but if no one has the floor, the beginning of a request for information and obtaining the floor in the normal way both begin with "Mr. President" and waiting to be recognized. I think what some of us are trying to guess is what Norm is trying to accomplish through his requests for information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 12:57 PM Do I need to obtain the floor?Yes, and that is how you obtain it--by rising and addressing the chair. You may not be satisfied with the answers, but you can rest assured that the meanings of terms as used here by experienced parliamentarians are in line with the meanings used in RONR, which may or may not be the same meaning you would find in a dictionary, especially when dealing with terms of art specific to parliamentary procedure. When another person has the floor, whether they are speaking at that instant or not, anything you do to seek recognition is called an interruption. If no one else has the floor, then seeking recognition is not an interruption. (But it still might not be in order for some other reason.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 10, 2014 at 03:31 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 03:31 PM Not that I disagree with what you said, but if no one has the floor, the beginning of a request for information and obtaining the floor in the normal way both begin with "Mr. President" and waiting to be recognized. I think what some of us are trying to guess is what Norm is trying to accomplish through his requests for information. Reading the original post, I'm not sure that Norm understands the ordinary procedure for obtaining the floor, but the fact remains that a member who merely wishes to make a request for information does not need to rise, say "Mr. President," and then wait to be recognized, but rather rises and says, "Mr. President, I have a request for information" or, "A point of information, please." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted September 10, 2014 at 04:14 PM Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 04:14 PM I want to give many thanks for the many outstanding responses posted here. After considering all, unless I get still better advice, I will be guided by my posts 17 and 22 in response to Tim Fish's posts. Also, I don't see how I can do wrong by calling the prez, "Mr. President", even if I'm not obligated to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 10, 2014 at 05:05 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 05:05 PM Reading the original post, I'm not sure that Norm understands the ordinary procedure for obtaining the floor, but the fact remains that a member who merely wishes to make a request for information does not need to rise, say "Mr. President," and then wait to be recognized, but rather rises and says, "Mr. President, I have a request for information" or, "A point of information, please." I want to give many thanks for the many outstanding responses posted here. After considering all, unless I get still better advice, I will be guided by my posts 17 and 22 in response to Tim Fish's posts. Also, I don't see how I can do wrong by calling the prez, "Mr. President", even if I'm not obligated to do so. My point was that in both cases you are obligated to say, "Mr. President." The difference is that with a request for information you would state "I have a request for information" before waiting to be recognized, while otherwise you would just say, "Mr. President" and then wait to be recognized. Except in the case of an interruption, in which case it is necessary to identify the reason for the interruption, we're really splitting hairs to worry about the distinction between the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 10, 2014 at 09:46 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 09:46 PM My point was that in both cases you are obligated to say, "Mr. President." The difference is that with a request for information you would state "I have a request for information" before waiting to be recognized, while otherwise you would just say, "Mr. President" and then wait to be recognized. Except in the case of an interruption, in which case it is necessary to identify the reason for the interruption, we're really splitting hairs to worry about the distinction between the two. "A point of information, please" doesn't necessarily begin with "Mr. President." Anyway, one of Norm's concerns seems to be that he may lose one of his speeches in debate, so it might be better to make it clear that he is not seeking the floor in debate, but is merely rising with a request for information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:07 PM Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 10:07 PM "A point of information, please" doesn't necessarily begin with "Mr. President." Anyway, one of Norm's concerns seems to be that he may lose one of his speeches in debate, so it might be better to make it clear that he is not seeking the floor in debate, but is merely rising with a request for information.This is one of my concerns. It seems that whether it counts as a debate or not depends on the judgment of the chair. If the chair doesn't like me, he might call my Req. for Info. one of my speaking rights. If I use a little tact and address him as Mr. Pres., that might be all that it takes to win the speaking right and maybe the day. The bigger concern had to do with "interruption". And here the posters seem to disagree, some saying its interrupting when someone is in the process of speaking and others saying it is still interrupting when others have finished speaking. (In both cases, I assume that a question is pending.) From all the posts, I decided to use this approach (and be sure to correct me if I am OoO): 1. If I interrupt someone who is in the process of speaking, obviously time is of the essence, so I rise w/o obtaining the floor, and say, "Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ..." 2. If no one is actually speaking, then I obtain the floor and say, "Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ..." Go ahead, posters; cry "J'accuse ...!" and shoot the above decision down. I'd rather be right than wrong even though my critics will accuse me of splitting hairs and continue to ask me to shut up. Addendum: IMO, RR-11 is not clear on the Req. for Info., failing to distinguish between the two cases as I described above as 1 and 2. The editors could have made the Req for Info as clear as they made clear the Par. Inquiry, but they did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2014 at 11:26 PM "A point of information, please" doesn't necessarily begin with "Mr. President." Anyway, one of Norm's concerns seems to be that he may lose one of his speeches in debate, so it might be better to make it clear that he is not seeking the floor in debate, but is merely rising with a request for information. Now you wouldn't be telling us not to use the wording that is in RONR, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:14 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:14 AM It seems that whether it counts as a debate or not depends on the judgment of the chair. If the chair doesn't like me, he might call my Req. for Info. one of my speaking rights. If I use a little tact and address him as Mr. Pres., that might be all that it takes to win the speaking right and maybe the day. If a member asks a question and says nothing else, this is not counted as one of the member's turns speaking in debate. It does not depend on the judgment of the chair if the chair is applying the rules properly. If the chair is going to decide that a question counts as one of a member's turns speaking in debate because he doesn't like the member, the assembly needs a new chair. With that said, a little tact certainly never hurt anyone. 1. If I interrupt someone who is in the process of speaking, obviously time is of the essence, so I rise w/o obtaining the floor, and say, "Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ..." 2. If no one is actually speaking, then I obtain the floor and say, "Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ..." Go ahead, posters; cry "J'accuse ...!" and shoot the above decision down. I'd rather be right than wrong even though my critics will accuse me of splitting hairs and continue to ask me to shut up. The appropriate procedure to ask a question of a member who is speaking is: "MEMBER A: Madam President, will the member yield for a question? Or: MEMBER A: Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman [or "the member"] a question." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 295) The member rises and (without recognition) addresses the President and asks whether the member will yield for a question. This procedure is a form of seeking recognition, but the member is seeking recognition for for the limited purpose of making a Request for Information. This distinction is especially important here, since the member cannot seek recognition in the ordinary way as a member is currently speaking. If the question is being asked of anyone other than a member who is currently speaking, the appropriate procedure is: "MEMBER A: Mr. President, I have a request for information. [Or, "A point of information, please."] CHAIR: The member will state his question. MEMBER A: Will the convention delegates report at this meeting?" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 294) A Request for Information may be used to ask a question of someone other than a speaker. In such a case, the member may seek limited recognition for a Request for Information, much as in the case above, although the words used in this case are "Mr. President, I have a request for information" or "A point of information, please." Since the text says nothing to the contrary, it would seem to me that such forms are in order whether or not a member is currently speaking (although such a question should only interrupt a speaker if absolutely necessary). As other members have suggested, if no member is currently speaking, it would also be in order for a member to seek recognition in the usual way by simply stating "Mr. President." The member could then use the floor for any legitimate purpose(s). He could, for instance, speak in debate and then ask a question. When no motion is pending, using the "request for information" or "point of information" language is not as essential, since members may seek recognition in the usual way. Using those forms is still in order, however, and may be advantageous. As noted, it will clearly indicate the member wishes to ask a question rather than speak in debate. This can become even more important in larger assemblies, when many members are seeking recognition at the same time. Members who wish to ask a question are often given preference over members who wish to speak in debate in such cases, either by rule or custom. Now you wouldn't be telling us not to use the wording that is in RONR, would you? The wording "A point of information, please" is in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 294. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:32 AM Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:32 AM If a member asks a question and says nothing else, this is not counted as one of the member's turns speaking in debate. It does not depend on the judgment of the chair if the chair is applying the rules properly. If the chair is going to decide that a question counts as one of a member's turns speaking in debate because he doesn't like the member, the assembly needs a new chair. With that said, a little tact certainly never hurt anyone. The appropriate procedure to ask a question of a member who is speaking is: "MEMBER A: Madam President, will the member yield for a question? Or: MEMBER A: Mr. President, I would like to ask the gentleman [or "the member"] a question." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 295) The member rises and (without recognition) addresses the President and asks whether the member will yield for a question. This procedure is a form of seeking recognition, but the member is seeking recognition for for the limited purpose of making a Request for Information. This distinction is especially important here, since the member cannot seek recognition in the ordinary way as a member is currently speaking. If the question is being asked of anyone other than a member who is currently speaking, the appropriate procedure is: "MEMBER A: Mr. President, I have a request for information. [Or, "A point of information, please."] CHAIR: The member will state his question. MEMBER A: Will the convention delegates report at this meeting?" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 294) A Request for Information may be used to ask a question of someone other than a speaker. In such a case, the member may seek limited recognition for a Request for Information, much as in the case above, although the words used in this case are "Mr. President, I have a request for information" or "A point of information, please." Since the text says nothing to the contrary, it would seem to me that such forms are in order whether or not a member is currently speaking (although such a question should only interrupt a speaker if absolutely necessary). As other members have suggested, if no member is currently speaking, it would also be in order for a member to seek recognition in the usual way by simply stating "Mr. President." The member could then use the floor for any legitimate purpose(s). He could, for instance, speak in debate and then ask a question. When no motion is pending, using the "request for information" or "point of information" language is not as essential, since members may seek recognition in the usual way. Using those forms is still in order, however, and may be advantageous. As noted, it will clearly indicate the member wishes to ask a question rather than speak in debate. This can become even more important in larger assemblies, when many members are seeking recognition at the same time. Members who wish to ask a question are often given preference over members who wish to speak in debate in such cases, either by rule or custom. The wording "A point of information, please" is in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 294.As is your custom, Josh, you cut through the thicket and make issues understandable. But look how many words it took you to explain it satisfactorily. How can any reader of RR-11 expect to learn this just from a reading it? Does every reader have to come to this forum to learn what RR-11 really means? Do the threads have to reach 20 or 30 posts to get the problem solved? Multiple interpretations of a text implies that the text is poorly written. This principle applies to any teaching materials, not only to RR-11, of course. If this is the kind of amplification that one needs to understand a Req. for Info. and other obscure parts of RR-11, then there ought to be a supplement to RR-11 somewhere. (I assume this is not covered in In Brief (which I have on order)), and it certainly is not covered in PL, which I have. Relying on the forum to "explain all" (as Poirot would have said) is unsat in my view of pedagogy. Addendum: I would like In Brief to be reissued with another title and make it much more complete to answer the subtleties and incompleteness of RR-11 that we have discussed here and in other threads. Addendum 2: And here's another fault that RR-11 and many pundits here make: P.449: "This person [the chair] should be well versed in parliamentary law ...". That's not going to happen. Societies don't pick executive officers because they are adept at PL. François Rabelais might have written that sentence as a joke. And judging from the outside posters here, my guess is that most of them can't afford to have a CP at the table and no chair is going to have words put into his/her mouth that he/she doesn't understand. IOW, the concept of the book is too theoretical for most of the real world. I'd hazard another guess that although most large societies, such as ours, cite it in their bylaws, but don't much follow it because they are unable to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 11, 2014 at 02:54 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 02:54 AM there ought to be a supplement to RR-11 somewhere. (I assume this is not covered in In Brief (which I have on order)), and it certainly is not covered in PL, which I have. Relying on the forum to "explain all" (as Poirot would have said) is unsat in my view of pedagogy. RONRIB (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief) does indeed address point of order, parliamentary inquiry, point of information and request of information, although very briefly. There are some other good books on parliamentary procedure that are solidly based on RONR and written in easier to understand language for beginners, but I'm not going to recommend any here for fear of incurring the wrath of The Wrathful One. Addendum: I would like In Brief to be reissued with another title and make it much more complete to answer the subtleties and incompleteness of RR-11 that we have discussed here and in other threads. Well, if it was much more detailed, it wouldn't be very brief, would it? RONR is intended to be The Authority. "In Brief" is intended to be, well, a brief overview. Edited to add: 716 pages isn't detailed enough for you? Addendum 2: And here's another fault that RR-11 and many pundits here make: P.449: "This person [the chair] should be well versed in parliamentary law ...". That's not going to happen. Societies don't pick executive officers because they are adept at PL. I believe the hope and expectation is that the chair will become well versed in parliamentary law as quickly as possible if he is deficient in that area when he is elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 11, 2014 at 03:25 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 03:25 AM How can any reader of RR-11 expect to learn this just from a reading it? Does every reader have to come to this forum to learn what RR-11 really means? Do the threads have to reach 20 or 30 posts to get the problem solved? Multiple interpretations of a text implies that the text is poorly written. This principle applies to any teaching materials, not only to RR-11, of course. If this is the kind of amplification that one needs to understand a Req. for Info. and other obscure parts of RR-11, then there ought to be a supplement to RR-11 somewhere. I don't think anyone should have trouble figuring this stuff out by reading it, as long as they realize that this isn't a document that must be followed exactly but the intent should be followed. For example: Even though I gave Mr. Gerber a hard time about suggesting that we not use "Mr. President" (which had nothing to do with my point anyway), if I were the president, I wouldn't chastise someone who called out, "I have a question," rather than using the more formal language that is given in RONR. Once you figure out the intent and why the rule is helpful, the rest falls into place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:38 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 12:38 PM From all the posts, I decided to use this approach (and be sure to correct me if I am OoO): 1. If I interrupt someone who is in the process of speaking, obviously time is of the essence, so I rise w/o obtaining the floor, and say, "Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ..." 2. If no one is actually speaking, then I obtain the floor and say, "Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ..." Go ahead, posters; cry "J'accuse ...!" and shoot the above decision down. I'd rather be right than wrong even though my critics will accuse me of splitting hairs and continue to ask me to shut up. Addendum: IMO, RR-11 is not clear on the Req. for Info., failing to distinguish between the two cases as I described above as 1 and 2. The editors could have made the Req for Info as clear as they made clear the Par. Inquiry, but they did not. Norm, I'm curious what you think it means that you would "rise without obtaining the floor and say, 'Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ...'" as opposed to what it would mean for you to "obtain the floor and say, 'Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah...''"Your use of "blah, blah, blah" instead of actual words is obscuring what you have in mind here. And the way you are wording your questions makes me think that perhaps you have some strange ideas about how a member actually goes about obtaining the floor. For example, in post 1, you say,"In my mind, this does not say that the requestor/inquirer can rise w/o obtaining the floor from the chair"and"If the chair says that I am OOO because I need his permission to obtain the floor to make my request"These are strange statements/questions, because rising and addressesing the chair are always the initial steps in obtaining the floor, and a member does not need permission from the chair in order to perform the initial steps in obtaining the floor. Have you read pages 29-31 (RONR, 11th ed.)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted September 11, 2014 at 03:49 PM Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 03:49 PM Norm, I'm curious what you think it means that you would "rise without obtaining the floor and say, 'Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah ...'" as opposed to what it would mean for you to "obtain the floor and say, 'Mr. Pres., blah, blah, blah...''"Your use of "blah, blah, blah" instead of actual words is obscuring what you have in mind here. And the way you are wording your questions makes me think that perhaps you have some strange ideas about how a member actually goes about obtaining the floor. For example, in post 1, you say,"In my mind, this does not say that the requestor/inquirer can rise w/o obtaining the floor from the chair"and"If the chair says that I am OOO because I need his permission to obtain the floor to make my request"These are strange statements/questions, because rising and addressesing the chair are always the initial steps in obtaining the floor, and a member does not need permission from the chair in order to perform the initial steps in obtaining the floor. Have you read pages 29-31 (RONR, 11th ed.)?FYI, our tradition is to remain seated and raise our hand for the chair's permission to speak. Then we rise and speak. (It stems from the fact that until a year ago, the membership was small and that is the way the more frequent Board meetings are and were conducted.) Having been granted the right to speak, I would then rise and speak. However, I will (not having had to do this before) violate that tradition at the upcoming owner meeting only when I make a PoO, Appeal, or any other statement where it is allowed in RR because time is of the essence. I will not need the chair's permission because RR allows me to do this. In all cases where I want to speak, I will always address the chair as "Mr/Ms President ..." because the prez must be the chair at all owner meeting per the bylaws and it doesn't hurt to be polite. Which brings me to the subject of this thread. Case 1: Yes, I reread those pages and I think that I understand them. They do not deal with interruptions of a person currently speaking. The Req. for Info., p. 295 does deal with interrrupting a speaker. "If information is desired of a member who is speaking, the inquirer, upon rising, etc." Therefore, because time is of the essence (otherwise, I would not interfere with the speaker's speech), I will rise w/o raising my hand (against tradition) to say, "Mr./Ms. Pres. I would like to ask the speaker a question." Naturally, I must wait for the prez to ask the speaker if he wants to answer my question, etc. Case 2: Now suppose that the speaker has finished speaking, my not having interrupting him/her. I do not have a question to ask him/her. I want to ask someone else a question (say, Counsel) that relates to what the speaker just said. I am not interrupting a speaker. But this time, I raise my hand to be allowed to speak because time is not of the essence. When acknowledged by the chair, I say, "Mr./Ms. Pres., I would like to ask Counsel's opinion on the subject." The only difference between the two cases is that in case one, I do not raise my hand to speak, I get up and speak. In case two, I do raise my hand and request to speak. Am I in order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 11, 2014 at 04:49 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 04:49 PM RONRIB (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief) does indeed address point of order, parliamentary inquiry, point of information and request of information, although very briefly. There are some other good books on parliamentary procedure that are solidly based on RONR and written in easier to understand language for beginners, but I'm not going to recommend any here for fear of incurring the wrath of The Wrathful One. Well, if it was much more detailed, it wouldn't be very brief, would it? RONR is intended to be The Authority. "In Brief" is intended to be, well, a brief overview. Edited to add: 716 pages isn't detailed enough for you? I believe the hope and expectation is that the chair will become well versed in parliamentary law as quickly as possible if he is deficient in that area when he is elected. What's with the red text? As you can see, it screws up the "Quote" function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:13 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:13 PM there ought to be a supplement to RR-11 somewhere. (I assume this is not covered in In Brief (which I have on order)), and it certainly is not covered in PL, which I have. Relying on the forum to "explain all" (as Poirot would have said) is unsat in my view of pedagogy. RONRIB (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief) does indeed address point of order, parliamentary inquiry, point of information and request of information, although very briefly. There are some other good books on parliamentary procedure that are solidly based on RONR and written in easier to understand language for beginners, but I'm not going to recommend any here for fear of incurring the wrath of The Wrathful One. Addendum: I would like In Brief to be reissued with another title and make it much more complete to answer the subtleties and incompleteness of RR-11 that we have discussed here and in other threads. Well, if it was much more detailed, it wouldn't be very brief, would it? RONR is intended to be The Authority. "In Brief" is intended to be, well, a brief overview. Edited to add: 716 pages isn't detailed enough for you? Addendum 2: And here's another fault that RR-11 and many pundits here make: P.449: "This person [the chair] should be well versed in parliamentary law ...". That's not going to happen. Societies don't pick executive officers because they are adept at PL. I believe the hope and expectation is that the chair will become well versed in parliamentary law as quickly as possible if he is deficient in that area when he is elected. This is a test. Do my statements in red appear between Norm's statements in black? It's appearing exactly as it should right now, before I click on the "post" button. Here goes. Edited to add: And it posted exactly as it appeared before I clicked on the "post" button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:16 PM What's with the red text? As you can see, it screws up the "Quote" function. It worked perfectly when I tried it just now, Edgar. Norm's statements/questions in black and my responses in red. I did it that way (as i've seen others do) because in that particular instance it seemed easier than having to use the multi-quote feature and deleting a bunch of Norm's comments that I was not responding to. If it screws things up, of course I'll be happy not to do it....and I've only done it this one time. Edited to add: P.S. If I do it again, I'll make clear that my responses are in red (or whatever color I'm using to distinguish my comments from the quoted comments). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:23 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:23 PM This is a test. Do my statements in red appear between Norm's statements in black? It's appearing exactly as it should right now, before I click on the "post" button. My point is that, regardless of the text color, your statements appear in a box called "Norm Mikalac said". So I can't simply click on the "Quote" button and select your statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:25 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 06:25 PM If it screws things up, of course I'll be happy not to do it.... Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikalac Posted September 11, 2014 at 07:12 PM Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 07:12 PM Will someone answer my #40 post and not use red color? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted September 11, 2014 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 07:50 PM FYI, our tradition is to remain seated and raise our hand for the chair's permission to speak. Then we rise and speak. (It stems from the fact that until a year ago, the membership was small and that is the way the more frequent Board meetings are and were conducted.) Having been granted the right to speak, I would then rise and speak. However, I will (not having had to do this before) violate that tradition at the upcoming owner meeting only when I make a PoO, Appeal, or any other statement where it is allowed in RR because time is of the essence. I will not need the chair's permission because RR allows me to do this. In all cases where I want to speak, I will always address the chair as "Mr/Ms President ..." because the prez must be the chair at all owner meeting per the bylaws and it doesn't hurt to be polite. Which brings me to the subject of this thread. Case 1: Yes, I reread those pages and I think that I understand them. They do not deal with interruptions of a person currently speaking. The Req. for Info., p. 295 does deal with interrrupting a speaker. "If information is desired of a member who is speaking, the inquirer, upon rising, etc." Therefore, because time is of the essence (otherwise, I would not interfere with the speaker's speech), I will rise w/o raising my hand (against tradition) to say, "Mr./Ms. Pres. I would like to ask the speaker a question." Naturally, I must wait for the prez to ask the speaker if he wants to answer my question, etc. Case 2: Now suppose that the speaker has finished speaking, my not having interrupting him/her. I do not have a question to ask him/her. I want to ask someone else a question (say, Counsel) that relates to what the speaker just said. I am not interrupting a speaker. But this time, I raise my hand to be allowed to speak because time is not of the essence. When acknowledged by the chair, I say, "Mr./Ms. Pres., I would like to ask Counsel's opinion on the subject." The only difference between the two cases is that in case one, I do not raise my hand to speak, I get up and speak. In case two, I do raise my hand and request to speak. Am I in order? I believe what you are saying is proper. Since the custom of your organization is hand raising, you should do that for the normal situation. For the rare case where you need to interrupt a speaker, you should "I get up and speak" as you say, because it is necessary to draw enough attention to yourself that the speaker and the chair are aware of your interruption. Raising your hand is not likely to do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted September 11, 2014 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 09:31 PM Will someone answer my #40 post and not use red color?Norm,Are you following the RONR standard script for interruptions?***MEMBER A (rising and addressing the chair immediately after the chair has recognized another member, Mr. Y, and before the latter has begun to speak―or remaining standing if he has just sought the floor unsuccessfully): Mr. President!CHAIR: For what purpose does the member rise [or, if Member A has remained standing after seeking the floor, “For what purpose does the member address the chair”]?MEMBER A: I wish to give notice of the following amendment to the bylaws: “To amend Article II, Section 3, by . . . ”CHAIR: Notice has been given of the following amendment to the bylaws: . . . Mr. Y has the floor.[reference = p. 123]***MEMBER X (obtaining the floor): I move the previous question. (Second. In this case the motion to Commit is affected.)CHAIR: The previous question is demanded. As many as are in favor of order . . .MEMBER Y (quickly rising and interrupting the chair): Mr. President. CHAIR: For what purpose does the member rise?MEMBER Y: I move the previous question on all pending question. (Second.)CHAIR: The previous question is also moved on all pending question. The question is now on the demand for the previous question on all pending question. As many . . .[reference = p. 208]*** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 11, 2014 at 09:35 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 09:35 PM I will never interrupt anyone for anything at a meeting. Norm,Are you following the RONR standard script for interruptions? I guess not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted September 11, 2014 at 09:49 PM Report Share Posted September 11, 2014 at 09:49 PM I move the previous question on all pending question. Are we missing an "s"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.