alternating speakers

[rhammar]

RONR (pp. 379-380) states that "in cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question . . . the chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure." At a recent convention with several thousand delegates at which I served as parliamentarian a motion was made, and during debate there were several delegates at the microphones ready to speak. After the maker of the motion spoke in favor of it, the chair asked if any wanted to speak in opposition to it, and no one responded. The chair stated that since no one wanted to speak in opposition, he would proceed directly to a vote on the motion. No appeal was made to the chair's ruling, and the motion passed overwhelmingly. Several weeks later, long after the convention ended, a delegate asked if the chair had handled this properly. Does the chair have the prerogative to close debate when only those in favor or a motion wish to speak? Or, should he have allowed persons in favor of the motion to speak until the previous question was moved and passed? I favor the second option, but cannot find this addressed specifically in RONR or this forum.

[Richard Brown]

 Does the chair have the prerogative to close debate when only those in favor or a motion wish to speak? Or, should he have allowed persons in favor of the motion to speak until the previous question was moved and passed? I favor the second option, but cannot find this addressed specifically in RONR or this forum.

No, the chair does not have that prerogative and did not handle the matter correctly.  The chair cannot alternate between those in favor and those opposed to a motion if there is no one opposed who wants to speak.  The chair should have allowed debate to continue until the previous question was ordered or it appeared there was no one  else wanting to speak.  I suspect it isn't addressed in RONR because there is no rule that says debate must end if there is no one on the opposite side wishing to speak.

 

Edited to add:  I do not read the quoted language on page 371 as requiring that debate stop when there is no one on the opposite side wishing to speak.  

 

Note:  The chair could have asked if there was any objection to proceeding directly to a vote since there is no one wishing to speak in opposition.  I guess it's possible that that's what he thought he was doing.  Also, any member could have raised a point of order that there were still members wishing to speak.  As you know, though, all of those are "coulda, shoulda, woulda".  I agree with you that the chair did not handle it correctly.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"The presiding officer cannot close debate so long as any member who has not exhausted his right to debate desires the floor, except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote" (RONR 11th ed., p. 44, ll. 6-9).

[Guest Nancy N.]

"The presiding officer cannot close debate so long as any member who has not exhausted his right to debate desires the floor, except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote" (RONR 11th ed., p. 44, ll. 6-9).

 

More succinct and more to the point, but I liked the chatty version better.