Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Quarterly Time Interval


Guest Kim-See Teo

Recommended Posts

I noticed that QTI wasn't found in the 1915 Edition of ROR, but indeed was there in the 1990 9th RONR Edition. Nobody seemed to know why at the recent eNAP bimonthly meeting and someone suggested that I should ask again here. Just hope there's food for thought since QTI is a defining concept for many motions between two sessions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pages 89-90 of RONR 11ed., describes QTI, to be the period, "...at any time during or before the third calendar month after the calendar month in which the first session ends." That implies more than three calendar months but just less than four. Isn't that period more than a Quarter? Why was this QTI introduced when the ROR in 1915 didn't say anything about it?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure there is any specific reason for a quarterly time interval rather than some other interval. But unless there to be no time constarints at all (and I know of one parliamentary authoity that, so far as I am aware, has none), some period will need to be specified. Quarterly seems as good as any, but if an organziatioin wants something else, it can always adopt a Special Rule of Order to specify a different interval..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kim-See Teo said:

Pages 89-90 of RONR 11ed., describes QTI, to be the period, "...at any time during or before the third calendar month after the calendar month in which the first session ends." That implies more than three calendar months but just less than four. Isn't that period more than a Quarter? Why was this QTI introduced when the ROR in 1915 didn't say anything about it?

There are plenty of references in ROR to societies that have quarterly meetings. For example, in section 35: "To Take from the Table . . . has the right of way in preference to main motions if made during the session in which it was laid on the table . . . and also during the next session in societies having regular business meetings as frequently as quarterly."

The last few editions of RONR are simply more precise in defining how the interval between meetings is calculated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, indeed I noticed that. But the term wasn't as precise as Quarterly Time Interval, only quarterly. I regard QTI as parliamentary but "quarterly" as an ordinary English word. 

This phrase came up in my online sessions with Chinese learners and in Chinese. They can't translate QTI exactly and instead use "three months" as equivalent. Yet QTI, isn't three months, but could be very close to even four months, albeit not hitting four exactly. That's the irony and difficulty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a society meets on the second Tuesday of the month in March, June, September, and December, then it will meet on December 13, 2016, and again on March 14, 2017. I would assume that most organizations with such a schedule would consider themselves to hold quarterly meetings. The rule in RONR makes it easy to determine that this is the case, without having to go strictly by the day of the month or by counting the number of days between meetings.

"Three months" or "a quarter of a year" both seem to me like good equivalents to "quarterly time interval", as long as you say how the term is defined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using your example, if there's a special meeting held anytime before end of June, assuming the second week of March was the first session, that would still be within QTI. But then it has exceeded three months, or beyond a quarter. 

We do not have a problem in understanding how QTI is defined as a parliamentary term. Our problem lies in its computation which gives rise to ambiguity in the Chinese translation. Notwithstanding that, we appreciate you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Kim-See Teo said:

Using your example, if there's a special meeting held anytime before end of June, assuming the second week of March was the first session, that would still be within QTI. But then it has exceeded three months, or beyond a quarter. 

It hasn't exceeded three months, if you stipulate at the outset that the three months are counted the way RONR counts them for this purpose.

19 minutes ago, Kim-See Teo said:

We do not have a problem in understanding how QTI is defined as a parliamentary term. Our problem lies in its computation which gives rise to ambiguity in the Chinese translation.

You haven't said anything to convince me that there has to be any more or less ambiguity in a Chinese translation than in the original English. There are various ways to count any given interval of time, whether it be stated in days, months, quarters, or years. As long as you define what your terms mean, and refer to the definition whenever the wording could be misinterpreted as having some different meaning, there will not be ambiguity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suppose the session started with a meeting on the 10th of March, and the next session could be held, if within the QTI, anytime before end of the third month, not counting March. That could be the end of June, to be still "...separated by no more than a QTI,..."  Isn't it correct? Let say, the next session begins on 30th of June, and so the period counted would be 3 calendar months plus two weeks. 

The ambiguity lies in the definition of a Quarter, which in the Chinese translation is in three words, not just one word, and so in the Chinese equivalent of "three (calendar) months". But then a QTI could be three months plus two weeks as in the example above. That's the difference. Over to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Kim-See Teo said:

Maybe I don't get you when you say, "as long as you define what your terms mean,..." Would I have the liberty to define QTI in any way I like, as long as it's approx three months? 

You can define the term "quarterly time interval" in any way you like, but if you don't define it in exactly the same way as it is defined in the current edition of RONR, please don't tell anyone that you have done so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kim-See, if precise translation of the term into a short Chinese phrase is the problem, you may have too insert an asterisk * or footnote after the term with a full explanation of how it is defined as a footnote, even if it takes a whole paragraph.  It seems to me there must be a way to explain in Chinese that "quarterly time interval" means exactly what RONR says it means rather than the common Chinese translation of exactly three months. 

Lots of parliamentary terms have a different meaning in parliamentary law than in general usage.  Off the top of my head "Reconsider" might be one of them. To a layman, to reconsider something means simply to bring it up again, no matter how it is brought up.  But, in parliamenitary law, it has a very precise meaning that is different from the way it is used in ordinary language.  If you tell your daughter, "I think you had better reconsider what you plan to wear to that party tonight", neither you nor she are contemplating having a properly called and noticed meeting and having someone who voted on the prevailing side make a formal motion to reconsider.  YOU are thinking and intending to say, "you are not going to wear that" and SHE is thinking, "Daddy won't let me wear this".    That's far from the parliamentary definition of "Reconsider".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree with you fully, my learned friend, Richard. When I was working full time in HK for four years as a high ranking high tech officer for the Pacific region, I taught part time English law to graduate students in the evenings. They were only conversant in Cantonese and Chinese but little English. Yet they all loved me as I spoke no Cantonese, and used English only to teach English law. Perfect fitting for them. So I knew what was required for Chinese translation from any English text. Thereafter, I even earned my Chinese Law Diploma from the Beijing Law Society, in 1989. Why I say this now?

You may recall at that time, from 1985 onward, Britain was fiercely negotiating with the PRC for the return of HK to the Mainland. What gives. They were at loggerheads and deadlock. Up till 1997, both governments could not find their meeting points to finalise their Basic Law for HK. Why? For the UK, they had over 500 years of English Legal System to back up but for the PRC, then only about 50 years of the so-called Chinese Law to talk about. It was like a square peg finding to slot into a round hole. As I understand both languages and was comfortable with both legal systems, I enjoyed the fun of seeing how the tough 12 years of excruciating pains suffered in HK, PRC and the U.K., well beyond negotiating table, beyond translation of one language into another, let alone the legal terms. 

So now, I find similar difficulties here, since the RONR was translated by one who wasn't even trained in PP, in the 10th Ed, and in the 11th Ed, he sort of overthrew lots of terms for new ones! Imagine how readers feel, never mind if they are confusingly disturbed. Many, many parliamentary terms or phrases were translated with inventive words in Chinese. Perhaps, over time, things will become easier. Bear in mind, Chinese language is digital while English to me is analog. In between there's a need for Analog-Digital Converters! 

I'm well aware of what you've in mind, since I got into learning PP in 2004. Happily so. 

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/10/2016 at 7:59 AM, Guest Kim-See Teo said:

. . . why is it defined to cover more than a calendar quarter of three months instead of less. 

This is interesting.

I copied an excerpt from page 89-90.
Let me try to give it a go, translation-wise.

***
(S1.) Important rules relating to the continuance of a question
from one session to the next depend on whether no more than
a quarterly time interval intervenes between the two sessions.

(S2.) In this book, it is understood that no more than a quarterly
time interval
intervenes between two sessions if the second

session begins at any time during or before the third calendar
month after the calendar month in which the first session
ends.

(S3.) For example, with reference to a session held in January,
no more than a quarterly time interval has elapsed since the
previous session if that session ended on or after October 1st
of the preceding calendar year; and no more than a quarterly
time interval will elapse before the next session if that session
will begin on or before April 30th of the current year.

***

Note that statement S3 never implies "90 days" nor implies "12 weeks" or "13 weeks". (There are 4.333... weeks per month, when you divide 365 by 52.)
Instead, Quarterly Time Interval is calculated based on twelvths (12ths) -- i.e., by calendar month-names.

Here is how I would put the phrase ("quarterly time interval")

   • Every third month.

   • Every third month-name.

   • Four times a year, evenly split across the year.

How's that? :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kim-See Teo said:

Using your example, if there's a special meeting held anytime before end of June, assuming the second week of March was the first session, that would still be within QTI. But then it has exceeded three months, or beyond a quarter. 

 

9 hours ago, Kim-See Teo said:

Suppose the session started with a meeting on the 10th of March, and the next session could be held, if within the QTI, anytime before end of the third month, not counting March. That could be the end of June, to be still "...separated by no more than a QTI,..."  Isn't it correct? Let say, the next session begins on 30th of June, and so the period counted would be 3 calendar months plus two weeks. 

The ambiguity lies in the definition of a Quarter, which in the Chinese translation is in three words, not just one word, and so in the Chinese equivalent of "three (calendar) months". But then a QTI could be three months plus two weeks as in the example above. That's the difference. Over to you.

You say that the interval from the second week of March to the last week of June both has "exceeded three months" and is "beyond a quarter." So why are you so troubled by whether the rule is specified in language based on "quarterly" (as in RONR) or language based on "three months" (as you say the language in RONR would have to be translated into when using Chinese)?

Suppose we had to translate RONR into a variety of English in which the word "quarterly" does not exist. Do you think the following rule [with changes from the existing language in RONR surrounded by brackets] would be in any way more ambiguous or difficult to understand than the existing rule?

"Important rules relating to the continuance of a question from one session to the next depend on whether no more than a [three-month span] intervenes between the two sessions. In this book, it is understood that no more than a [three-month span] intervenes between two sessions if the second session begins at any time during or before the third calendar month after the calendar month in which the first session ends. For example, with reference to a session held in January, no more than a [three-month span] has elapsed since the previous session if that session ended on or after October 1st of the preceding calendar year; and no more than a [three-month span] will elapse before the next session if that session will begin on or before April 30th of the current year."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had Mr. Robert been here today, he might be somewhat amazed to realise that there's the Art and Science of his original thoughts written for the world. What Kim has enticingly illustrated here is the Science of the Robert while the world since, Feb 19, 1876 has enjoyed a lot of the Art, which I summarised in a short article to share with my Chinese learners in China, just weeks ago.

indeed, Kim worked out nicely based the Law of Averages to convince even the most reticent that what's turbidity can be crystal clear, in number terms. I should refer to his numerological thinking when this QTI comes up again in our learning discussions. 

Interestingly too, i shared a point in my jovial vein recently on fB, with a famed writer now on the 3rd edition of his book on Robert, that I could read his mind rather easily, than the RONR today. Why? Well, this Rulebook today has become the composite works of five brilliant minds, instead of just one. It has sort of become the behemoth of squeezed intellectual juices on Robert, where even the best will only become better. Only here on the Q&A Forum do we get a glimpse to probe into the active minds of two of the five most incisive intellectual crunchers, if I may, to enjoy every moment. 

Thanks, Kim, I appreciate you very much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

You mean Cantonese and Mandarin?

No. Both Cantonese and Mandarin have almost the same written characters but in speaking they're miles apart. Cantonese speakers don't understand Mandarin speakers at all, and vice versa. I read and write Mandarin and Cantonese but speak only Mandarin, no Cantonese. Now my speaking Cantonese is getting better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

You say that the interval from the second week of March to the last week of June both has "exceeded three months" and is "beyond a quarter." So why are you so troubled by whether the rule is specified in language based on "quarterly" (as in RONR) or language based on "three months" (as you say the language in RONR would have to be translated into when using Chinese)?

Suppose we had to translate RONR into a variety of English in which the word "quarterly" does not exist. Do you think the following rule [with changes from the existing language in RONR surrounded by brackets] would be in any way more ambiguous or difficult to understand than the existing rule?

 

I'm less troubled than you perceive, Mr. Gerber.

I gathered from all input that I should be more concerned with the "form" of the QTI, than the "substance" of it. It's just a frame of reference that's of relevance, not so much about the precision of the definition of that period of a Quarter. It shouldn't even bother me and my Chinese PP learners whether that period should be 91 or 92 days or even a little less than 120 days to define a quarter.

It's more about how to understand that period between the two consecutive quarters that's of essence in application. After all, we can even define how a quarter should be as long as they serve the purpose within our assembly of intellectual members (so says Mr. Honemann) and so long as there're only four quarters in a calendar! 

That's my understanding of the rationale. 

Notwithstanding, learning a new field of parliamentary education by a people of completely different culture takes many gigantic steps! It's not just about the language for learners in China but also the restricted form of their political setting, as it were. And the way for them to tune into the Western frequency of thinking and life, as it is. 

This probably explains why so far there are 3 RPs in China today, who earned their credentials very recently in the Chinese language form, and who so excitedly have been asking me to "fill in their intellectual gaps" in understanding and applying the RR. Despite their credentials, they're at a complete loss, so to speak. So far, all other English qualified RPs and PRPs in the world, are non-Chinese speaking until I appeared in their scenario recently. Just fancy that.

Over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Kim-See Teo said:

They were only conversant in Cantonese and Chinese but little English.

 

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

You mean Cantonese and Mandarin?

 

46 minutes ago, Kim-See Teo said:

No. Both Cantonese and Mandarin have almost the same written characters but in speaking they're miles apart.

That's why I was confused by the statement "They were only conversant in Cantonese and Chinese." I understood "conversant" to mean "able to speak." I'm still not sure, but now I understand that you meant they could communicate (not just speak/listen) using Cantonese and written Chinese.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kim-See Teo said:

I gathered from all input that I should be more concerned with the "form" of the QTI, than the "substance" of it. It's just a frame of reference that's of relevance, not so much about the precision of the definition of that period of a Quarter. It shouldn't even bother me and my Chinese PP learners whether that period should be 91 or 92 days or even a little less than 120 days to define a quarter.

It's more about how to understand that period between the two consecutive quarters that's of essence in application. After all, we can even define how a quarter should be as long as they serve the purpose within our assembly of intellectual members (so says Mr. Honemann) and so long as there're only four quarters in a calendar! 

That's my understanding of the rationale. 

I really have no idea what you are saying now. But, notwithstanding that, we appreciate you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...