3 pro/con reply

[Guest leo]

A main motion was given 3 pro and 3 con discussions. Then an amendment was moved but parliamentarian ruled that no amendment could take place after 3 pro and 3 con discussions?

No such requirement for 3 pro/con discussions, nor such restriction against amending, will be found in RONR. You might ask your parliamentarian where that idea came from. And it's not the parliamentarian's place to make rulings. That right belongs to the presiding officer. In Topic: Executive Board Meeting

Posted 7 Aug 2011

Thanks for reply, I have a further question: Even if the STANDING RULE at the conference was to limit discussions on motions to 3 pro/con?

[Gary c Tesser]

...

Thanks for reply, I have a further question: Even if the STANDING RULE at the conference was to limit discussions on motions to 3 pro/con?

Yeah, even if. Making a motion does not count as a speech in debate. (I take it that what I, and perhaps other aspiring parliamentarians like me, think of as speeches in debate, are what leo's organization calls pro-and-con discussions. Otherwise, alas, I have not answered leo's question. Couldn't even find the citation I was thinking of, after 93 seconds of page-flipping. I thought it was around p. 384. Alas.0)

(Edited to supply the close-alas punctuation.)

[Gary c Tesser]

I was thinking of p. 376 - 377, but after reading Guest_dwalcerz_*'s discussion thread just now, I suspect that this is not the apt rule. leo, take a look there: David Foulkes (rhymes with "" ... ah, skip it) does a fine job of summarizing p. 187, although, alas, he takes Guest_dwalcerz_*'s typo of p. 72 for 62 too literally.