What is considered Germane

[cotts135]

Hi

New member to the forum but not totally new to Parliamentary procedure. I am currently on a Board where meetings that should take 1 hour drag on to 4 hours. What I have noticed is that anytime a motion is brought up one or two members instead of saying if their for or against the motion bring up issues such as is" there enough money to do that" or "We need to get more information". In the former what usually happens is that a long discussion with the Treasurer takes place and in the latter usually the issue gets completely muddied with the conversation going in every direction.

This is a small Board with only 8 members, and the proceedings are for the most part informal.

My questions are

How rigid is the requirement for debate that when it is your time to talk you rise and speak either for or against the motion and give your reasons for your decision?

At what point would the conversation not be germane to the motion whereby you might call a point of order or table the motion.

I understand these are judgement calls. What I am looking for are suggestions to move the meeting along and ideas that have worked for people on the forum who have found themselves in the same situation.

Thanks

[hmtcastle]

My questions are

How rigid is the requirement for debate that when it is your time to talk you rise and speak either for or against the motion and give your reasons for your decision?

At what point would the conversation not be germane to the motion whereby you might call a point of order or table the motion.

Well, in a small board you needn't rise. And, as you've observed, it's a judgment call as to just how strictly you'll observe the relaxed rules.

The bottom line is that if enough members want the meeting to last four hours, it will last four hours. And if enough members want it to be finished in an hour, it will be finished in an hour. The chair can certainly set the tone but, in the end, it's the majority that rules.

[Josh Martin]

How rigid is the requirement for debate that when it is your time to talk you rise and speak either for or against the motion and give your reasons for your decision?

It's a judgment call. As for your particular issues, if members intend to ask questions of a non-parliamentary nature, they should raise a Point of Information instead. If members talk about "needing more information," the chair might suggest that the member might be interested in a motion to Postpone Definitely or to Refer.

At what point would the conversation not be germane to the motion whereby you might call a point of order or table the motion.

A member may raise a Point of Order at any point he feels the conversation is not germane. A motion to Lay on the Table is not in order simply on the basis that debate is not germane. Of course, I suspect you really mean Postpone Definitely, in which case go ahead if you feel it would be best to delay the motion to the next meeting. Of course, the motion to Postpone Definitely is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption. See FAQ #12.

I understand these are judgement calls. What I am looking for are suggestions to move the meeting along and ideas that have worked for people on the forum who have found themselves in the same situation.

Since this is an ongoing problem, and since many members appear to not know about the other parliamentary tools to accomplish their objectives, I don't think you will be able to resolve this during a meeting with some Points of Order. I think the best solution for this assembly is greater parliamentary education. Some group study sessions of RONR In Brief would go a long way, or possibly a presentation from a professional parliamentarian in the area.

[hmtcastle]

I think the best solution for this assembly is greater parliamentary education.

Let's not forget that this is just, at most, eight people sitting around a table. As such it barely rises to the level of being a deliberative assembly that requires "a degree of formality" (p.1). Toss in (or out) a couple of absent members and you've got six people sitting around a table. If four of them want a four-hour meeting, all the parliamentary education in the world won't amount to a hill of beans.

[Rev Ed]

If necessary, the members (especially the Chairman) should at least read RONR in brief. However, if you believe that a discussion is not germane, then you have the right to raise a point of order. While the members may make a mrrtin lst four hours if they really want to, the Chairman still has the duty to make sure that the meeting stays on track and that the meeting does not get off track.

[Josh Martin]

Let's not forget that this is just, at most, eight people sitting around a table. As such it barely rises to the level of being a deliberative assembly that requires "a degree of formality" (p.1). Toss in (or out) a couple of absent members and you've got six people sitting around a table. If four of them want a four-hour meeting, all the parliamentary education in the world won't amount to a hill of beans.

Based on the information the poster has provided, a large part of the problem seems to be that members are not aware of the proper tools to accomplish their desired objectives. I suspect this plays some role in the length of the meetings. Even in a small assembly, a little parliamentary education can go a long way.

I concede, however, that this is a small assembly and so a study session or a professional parliamentarian may be overkill. The original poster might be able to make a lot of headway by speaking with members individually outside of meetings and informing them of such devices as a Point of Information, or the motions to Postpone Definitely and to Refer.