Continious Debate

[Guest Evelyn]

Can a Chairman refuse to call for the vote even after all motions are exhausted to allow for continious debate? If there is not a two third majority to limit time, how do you stop debate and call for the question?

[Robert B Fish]

No.

Unless the assembly votes to cutoff debate (2/3 vote required), each member may speak twice to the question and he/she is limited to 10 minutes per speech.

For meetings that might become contentious, I suggest voting in advance to provide a reasonable (but not excessive) total time limit on debate. The chairman can also help keep things calm by reviewing the rules for decorum prior to the debate beginning.

-Bob

[Guest Evelyn]

Where are you finding the information that limits each member to speaking twice and 10 minutes per speech?

No.

Unless the assembly votes to cutoff debate (2/3 vote required), each member may speak twice to the question and he/she is limited to 10 minutes per speech.

For meetings that might become contentious, I suggest voting in advance to provide a reasonable (but not excessive) total time limit on debate. The chairman can also help keep things calm by reviewing the rules for decorum prior to the debate beginning.

-Bob

[Rob Elsman]

Can a Chairman refuse to call for the vote even after all motions are exhausted to allow for continious debate? If there is not a two third majority to limit time, how do you stop debate and call for the question?

As long as even a single member who is legitimately entitled to the floor claims the floor for debate, the chairman has the duty of his office to recognize him, RONR (10th ed.), pp. 374, 375, 434. Debate continues until 1) no one rises to claim the floor; or, 2) all the members who might wish to speak have exhausted their right to debate the question; or, 3) the Previous Question is ordered; or, 4) the hour at which debate has been ordered to close has arrived.

[Rob Elsman]

Where are you finding the information that limits each member to speaking twice and 10 minutes per speech?

RONR (10th ed.), pp. 375-377.

[Chris Harrison]

Each member can speak twice for 10 minutes per question per day (RONR pp. 375-376). Each time an amendment is proposed each member has a total of 20 minutes to speak on it, every time a motion is made to refer to a committee every member has a total of 20 minutes to speak on it, each time a motion is made to postpone consideration of the question to a later time.... well you get the point. So if 2/3 of the member who voted aren't willing to stop debate you will very likely be there for a LONG TIME. One option would be move to Adjourn the meeting which only requires a majority vote. However, if you can't even get a majority to Adjourn you all are out of luck unless the quorum is high enough that it can be broken by enough members walking out.

[Rob Elsman]

Each member can speak twice for 10 minutes per question per day (RONR pp. 375-376). Each time an amendment is proposed each member has a total of 20 minutes to speak on it, every time a motion is made to refer to a committee every member has a total of 20 minutes to speak on it, each time a motion is made to postpone consideration of the question to a later time.... well you get the point. So if 2/3 of the member who voted aren't willing to stop debate you will very likely be there for a LONG TIME. One option would be move to Adjourn the meeting which only requires a majority vote. However, if you can't even get a majority to Adjourn you all are out of luck unless the quorum is high enough that it can be broken by enough members walking out.

Adjournment might actually prolong the debate, since the members' right to debate is refreshed if debate is resumed on a later day.

[Chris Harrison]

Adjournment might actually prolong the debate, since the members' right to debate is refreshed if debate is resumed on a later day.

So they are pretty much out of luck and need to hope that the talkers get a major case of laryngitis.

[Rob Elsman]

So they are pretty much out of luck and need to hope that the talkers get a major case of laryngitis.

I think the opinion would be that the debate is still useful as long as the sides continue to be fairly evenly divided.

Each side might also offer amendments (compromises) intended to entice some from the opposing side to cross over and reach the two-thirds vote necessary to shut off further debate and amendments.

[David A Foulkes]

Can a Chairman refuse to call for the vote even after all motions are exhausted to allow for continious debate?

Each member can speak twice for 10 minutes per question per day (RONR pp. 375-376). Each time an amendment is proposed each member has a total of 20 minutes to speak on it, every time a motion is made to refer to a committee every member has a total of 20 minutes to speak on it, each time a motion is made to postpone consideration of the question to a later time.... well you get the point. So if 2/3 of the member who voted aren't willing to stop debate you will very likely be there for a LONG TIME.

Chris H's description of what I interpret to be the RONR-world version of the filibuster notwithstanding, it seems Evelyn is hinting more at motions made to simply continue debating, not to offer amendments, refer to committees, or postpone consideration. Evelyn - is that what's happening here, that members move to keep on debating a motion and the Chair allows it?

[Guest Evelyn]

Yes. Basically. There are no amendments bing offered. Simply the same motion being debated over and over again without the Chair moving the vote.

Chris H's description of what I interpret to be the RONR-world version of the filibuster notwithstanding, it seems Evelyn is hinting more at motions made to simply continue debating, not to offer amendments, refer to committees, or postpone consideration. Evelyn - is that what's happening here, that members move to keep on debating a motion and the Chair allows it?

[Trina]

Yes. Basically. There are no amendments bing offered. Simply the same motion being debated over and over again without the Chair moving the vote.

You could raise a point of order that the limits of debate have already been exhausted. To formally extend the limits of debate (which the assembly seems to be doing informally, and which the chair is allowing) would actually require a two-thirds vote. Even if you can't get a two-thirds vote to 'call the question' (properly, move the previous question), as per your original post, it's quite possible that the people who want to talk interminably won't have the numbers to get a two-thirds vote IN FAVOR of continuing the debate past the normal limits. In other words, the burden at this point shouldn't be on those who want to limit the debate (since the defined limits have already been reached and passed), but on those who want to extend the limits of debate.

[David A Foulkes]

You could raise a point of order ...

. Even if you can't get a two-thirds vote to 'call the question' (properly, move the previous question)...

Trina, I trust you know that I look forward to your posts and value your input and your questions. In this instance, you're right, best as I can tell, and other responses here offer great insight as well.

BUT - the inherent problem with such replies as yours here to posts such as this (and others over time) is that it demands of the assembly the proper following of corrective RONR parliamentary rule....... when the whole reason Evelyn has posted is here is that the assembly does not follow RONR to begin with. I suspect if she were to raise a point of order, the Chair would rule it out of order, she would appeal, and the vote would support the Chair because these blowhards (Chair included) just want to babble on into the night.

So many organization represented here by the posters clearly display a careless disregard for bylaws, RONR, common decency, or even fair play. Bringing the rule book to the game is likely only to offer these miscreants something to throw at her as they eject her from the meeting hall for being disruptive.

I'm just simply chiming in for Evelyn's sake to say - Evelyn, while you do have recourse as detailed in the posts above (and perhaps other options as well), these kids just don't want to play by the rules. I'd guess there is no RONR to be found at the meetings (assuming your bylaws indicate RONR as your parliamentary authority), but either way go get your own copy, sticky note the pages recommended in this thread, read up on Point of Order, and give it all you can. And if they still don't want to play by the rules, the choice to stay on the team is still yours.

Best of luck.

[Trina]

Trina, I trust you know that I look forward to your posts and value your input and your questions. In this instance, you're right, best as I can tell, and other responses here offer great insight as well.

BUT - the inherent problem with such replies as yours here to posts such as this (and others over time) is that it demands of the assembly the proper following of corrective RONR parliamentary rule....... when the whole reason Evelyn has posted is here is that the assembly does not follow RONR to begin with. I suspect if she were to raise a point of order, the Chair would rule it out of order, she would appeal, and the vote would support the Chair because these blowhards (Chair included) just want to babble on into the night.

....

One can hope that the problem in Evelyn's group may be lack of information, and reticence on the part of those members who would really like to move ahead to the vote (maybe they figure, if they politely wait just a bit longer, the talking will eventually come to an end by itself). If it's brought to their attention that continuing debate past the normal limits requires a formal decision, perhaps that will get people out of their ruts.

You're right, of course, that if the majority has no interest in playing by the rules, quoting from RONR will not magically solve the problem.

I have certainly seen that in the organizations I belong to myself (a perfectly applicable rule from RONR has no weight at all, if most of the people at the meeting refuse to take the rule into consideration) -- there is no enforcing authority, beyond the assembly itself, which can be pretty jarring when you just KNOW that you're right about something

It's not like the laws of physics, which take care of themselves. In the parliamentary sense, if the assembly doesn't believe in gravity, they CAN all start floating around the meeting hall...

Adding one other note of substance, which may apply to Evelyn's association -- in a small assembly, the rules about limitation of debate are different:

'There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a question, and motions to close or limit debate generally should not be entertained.' (RONR p. 470 ll. 28-30)

So, Evelyn, does the assembly in question have less than about a dozen members? In that case, it may be fairly appropriate for people to have their full say, even beyond the formal 2 speeches of 10 minutes each.

[Josh Martin]

BUT - the inherent problem with such replies as yours here to posts such as this (and others over time) is that it demands of the assembly the proper following of corrective RONR parliamentary rule....... when the whole reason Evelyn has posted is here is that the assembly does not follow RONR to begin with. I suspect if she were to raise a point of order, the Chair would rule it out of order, she would appeal, and the vote would support the Chair because these blowhards (Chair included) just want to babble on into the night.

David, I'm pretty sure Evelyn has a majority, but less than a 2/3 majority, on her side. Stalling tactics in debate are typically used by the minority. The majority has no reason to stall.