Question about "having the floor"

[LaurelH]

Hello,

In our Senate, sometimes the maker of motion or the person advancing a particular resolution or business item, may be asked by the Chair if they wish to respond to particular questions raised by other members. If the Chair recognizes that maker to respond to such questions, is that 1) appropriate? 2) does that give the responder the right to make motions (such as ending debate) 3) does the floor technically belong to the questioner or 4) should the maker wait to get on our speakers list to respond to questions. We do not "rise" at our meetings, but take down a speakers list in any debate. I've looked this up, but can't quite seem to find what pertains to this particular circumstance.

Many thanks in advance!

Laurel Holmstrom

Sonoma State University

[Gary Novosielski]

Hello,

In our Senate, sometimes the maker of motion or the person advancing a particular resolution or business item, may be asked by the Chair if they wish to respond to particular questions raised by other members. If the Chair recognizes that maker to respond to such questions, is that 1) appropriate? 2) does that give the responder the right to make motions (such as ending debate) 3) does the floor technically belong to the questioner or 4) should the maker wait to get on our speakers list to respond to questions. We do not "rise" at our meetings, but take down a speakers list in any debate. I've looked this up, but can't quite seem to find what pertains to this particular circumstance.

While the maker of the motion (or anyone for that matter) has the floor, others may ask (by addressing the chair) whether the person speaking will accept a question. The chair will ask if the person speaking will yield for a question, and if not, that's the end of it.

If the speaker does yield for a question, the person asking does not "have the floor", and can only ask the question (but at all times addressing the chair) and cannot make motions. Any time consumed by the questioner comes out of the time of the member who actually has the floor.

[LaurelH]

While the maker of the motion (or anyone for that matter) has the floor, others may ask (by addressing the chair) whether the person speaking will accept a question. The chair will ask if the person speaking will yield for a question, and if not, that's the end of it.

If the speaker does yield for a question, the person asking does not "have the floor", and can only ask the question (but at all times addressing the chair) and cannot make motions. Any time consumed by the questioner comes out of the time of the member who actually has the floor.

I understand that part, but it was the responder to the question that made a motion. The Chair has asked if she wanted to respond to questions, which she did and then she made a motion to end debate. The Chair ruled it out of order as she didn't really have the floor. Trying to determine what was correct in this case.

Thanks!

[Josh Martin]

I understand that part, but it was the responder to the question that made a motion. The Chair has asked if she wanted to respond to questions, which she did and then she made a motion to end debate. The Chair ruled it out of order as she didn't really have the floor. Trying to determine what was correct in this case.

If the responder did not have the floor when the question was asked, the chair ruled correctly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

In our Senate, sometimes the maker of motion or the person advancing a particular resolution or business item, may be asked by the Chair if they wish to respond to particular questions raised by other members.

If the Chair recognizes that maker to respond to such questions,

1) is that appropriate?

2) does that give the responder the right to make motions (such as ending debate)

3) does the floor technically belong to the questioner or

4) should the maker wait to get on our speakers list to respond to questions.

A1. Yes.

The Book does provide a method by which the chair may defer a question from a non-floor-granted person directly to the person who does have the floor.

A2."Responder"?

Do you mean, the interrupter?

Do you mean the person who had the floor at the time of the interruption?

Certainly, the questioner cannot make a motion, because he is not being granted the floor for that purpose. This is a second reason why we know that the debater "holds the floor", since the speaker/debater can make a motion on any subject, while the questioner cannot make a motion on any subject, being limited to asking a question, and nothing else.

A3. The floor still belongs to the debater, overall, not the questioner. We know this because The Book says that the ten-minute time limit for debate continues to tick and shrink when/if the speaker "yields the floor" for a question. Thus, the questioner could, in theory, chew up 100% of the minutes alloted to that speaker's allotment.

A4. There is no such thing as a "speakers list" by default.

If YOU have such a thing, the controlling rules must be created and administered by YOU. The Book has no fixed rule about speaker lists, except for a very rare, and limited, example in the motion "Limit/Extend Limits of Debate" (where the number of speakers on each side is pre-selected, not dynamically compiled on the fly, by counting hands raised).

We do not "rise" at our meetings, but take down a speakers list in any debate.

I've looked this up, but can't quite seem to find what pertains to this particular circumstance.

No wonder. -- You won't find a "create a list of speakers" procedure in Robert's Rules of Order.

Each speaker is at risk to hear the immediately-prior speaker to move the Previous Question, which, upon adoption, closes all debate and all amendments on the pending question.

Granted, organizations are free to customize their debate procedure. I take it that your organization has done exactly that, either by rule or by custom.

[Gary Novosielski]

I understand that part, but it was the responder to the question that made a motion. The Chair has asked if she wanted to respond to questions, which she did and then she made a motion to end debate. The Chair ruled it out of order as she didn't really have the floor. Trying to determine what was correct in this case.

That seems improper but I'll have to wait till I'm home to look in The Book. If speaking in debate, someone can raise questions rhetorically, but cannot demand answers from another member who does not have the floor. If the chair allowed it, and no one objected. I would think it's a similar situation. The person who actually has the floor does not relinquish it by yielding for a question (or in this case an answer) and the person yielded to for, let's call it information, cannot make motions.

[Josh Martin]

A2."Responder"?

Do you mean, the interrupter?

Do you mean the person who had the floor at the time of the interruption?

Certainly, the questioner cannot make a motion, because he is not being granted the floor for that purpose. This is a second reason why we know that the debater "holds the floor", since the speaker/debater can make a motion on any subject, while the questioner cannot make a motion on any subject, being limited to asking a question, and nothing else.

It's not clear to me that there was an interruption. It seems to me that, when no member had the floor, a member requested to ask a question of the motion maker. In such a case, all the motion maker may do is respond to the question. He would need to gain recognition to make a motion.

If speaking in debate, someone can raise questions rhetorically, but cannot demand answers from another member who does not have the floor.

Well, I agree that he cannot demand answers, but he could raise a Point of Information.

[Rob Elsman]

Hello,

In our Senate, sometimes the maker of motion or the person advancing a particular resolution or business item, may be asked by the Chair if they wish to respond to particular questions raised by other members. If the Chair recognizes that maker to respond to such questions, is that 1) appropriate? 2) does that give the responder the right to make motions (such as ending debate) 3) does the floor technically belong to the questioner or 4) should the maker wait to get on our speakers list to respond to questions. We do not "rise" at our meetings, but take down a speakers list in any debate. I've looked this up, but can't quite seem to find what pertains to this particular circumstance.

Many thanks in advance!

Laurel Holmstrom

Sonoma State University

I don't think I understand the circumstances very well. There is no such thing as a Q&A period in RONR. Is that what you have in mind?

[LaurelH]

It's not clear to me that there was an interruption. It seems to me that, when no member had the floor, a member requested to ask a question of the motion maker. In such a case, all the motion maker may do is respond to the question. He would need to gain recognition to make a motion.

Well, I agree that he cannot demand answers, but he could raise a Point of Information.

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. A resolution was under debate. Various speakers had spoken and raised questions about the resolution. The Chair asked the maker of the resolution if she wanted to answer the questions. She did and then made a motion. The Chair ruled that motion out of order since she "didn't really have the floor." Neither she nor the Chair interrupted anyone. Does that help? I appreciate all this info very much and just want to make sure you understand the question.

A thousand thanks!

Laurel

[Josh Martin]

She did and then made a motion. The Chair ruled that motion out of order since she "didn't really have the floor." Neither she nor the Chair interrupted anyone. Does that help?

No, it actually makes things more complicated. Under the procedures in RONR, one member asks a question and the question is immediately responded to, rather than a whole host of members asking questions and the motion maker responding to all of them. If your assembly wants some sort of "Q & A period" you should develop customized rules to handle it. This was rather poorly handled, but it seems to me that the chair actually did grant recognition to the member (he shouldn't be soliciting debate from members, but that's a whole other issue) and he should have been permitted to make a motion, but it's water under the bridge now.

[Rob Elsman]

Perhaps I'm not being clear enough. A resolution was under debate. Various speakers had spoken and raised questions about the resolution. The Chair asked the maker of the resolution if she wanted to answer the questions. She did and then made a motion. The Chair ruled that motion out of order since she "didn't really have the floor." Neither she nor the Chair interrupted anyone. Does that help? I appreciate all this info very much and just want to make sure you understand the question.

A thousand thanks!

Laurel

If the maker was recognized to make her responses when no one else had the floor, then the maker was entitled to use the floor for any legitimate purpose, or combination of purposes, allowed under the rules. In my opinion, the maker was entitled to end her remarks with a motion for the Previous Question, provided the Previous Question was in order in the current parliamentary situation. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 365, l. 33, through p. 366, l. 3.

[Rev Ed]

If debate is going to take the form of a Question & Answer session, then the group should adopt rules to allow it.

However, if a member does have questions and another member has the answer (for example, the mover of the motion, or another member), then the Chairman may ask that member to respond. For example, when discussing an issue involving a money, a member could always ask if the organization can afford the action being taken. The Treasurer may be called on to provide the answer.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, many of the above methods are covered in RONR under the heading Point of Information (RONR p. 282, l. 15 ff.)

The person asking the question may be the one who has the floor, inquiring of someone else, such as asking the treasure what the checking account balance is before proposing an expenditure. Or it may be someone who wishes to question the one who has the floor.

In either case, the time counts against the one who has the floor, and the floor is not relinquished by the person who originally had it by virtue of posing or accepting a question. The person who does not have the floor, whether asking or answering the question, may not make motions.

In Jeopardy-like fashion, all points of information must be in the form of a question, even if the intent is to convey information, and must always be addressed to the chair: "Madam President, is the member aware of the recent research at Cal Tech which calls into question his entire theory?" But it can also be intended to be helpful: "Mr. Chairman, would the speaker agree with me that this is the most beneficial bylaws amendment ever proposed in recorded history?"

But if the chair in this case waited until a number of speakers had raised questions and completed their speeches, and then recognized the mover for the purpose of responding to them, then the mover had the floor, and the chair erred in not allowing her to move the Previous Question.