Limits on Debate

[Guest Casey]

At a meeting of a city council, which has adopted RONR, a standing committee offers a report; one item on that report is separated for debate. During debate, a member offers three amendments, each of which is presented as a separate motion, seconded, debated, and then voted upon (let's refer to this as "perfecting" the question). When the member moves his third amendment, another member raises a point of order to indicate that the amendment being offered is out of order because the movant has already spoken twice in debate (referring to the first two amendments offered). The presiding officer refers to the clerk/parliamentarian.

The council's standing rules provide the following:

"No member shall speak more than twice during the same day to the same question, no longer than seven (7) minutes for the first speech on a question and five (5) minutes for a second speech on the same question. For the purpose of this rule, the making of a motion other than a point of personal privilege or point of order shall be considered a speech."

The clerk interpreted this rule to mean that no member may speak more than twice during the same day to any main motion (new subject matter), but that the rule does not address subsidiary motions which are aimed at perfecting the intent of the original main motion, which is the "question" identified in the council rule. The clerk indicates that otherwise, this rule could be used to limit the number of amendments, substitues, and other secondary motions that might be offered, which would in effect limit or restrict the ability of members to transact business. Thus, the focus on the main motion or "question." The city attorney concurred in that interpretation and position, as stated by the clerk.

After the meeting adjourned, the vice-president challenged the clerk's opinion.

Thoughts or feedback? Who's right?

[Shmuel Gerber]

The council's standing rules provide the following:

"No member shall speak more than twice during the same day to the same question, no longer than seven (7) minutes for the first speech on a question and five (5) minutes for a second speech on the same question. For the purpose of this rule, the making of a motion other than a point of personal privilege or point of order shall be considered a speech."

The rule stated above is the opposite of the rule in RONR, which provides that "nor is the making of a secondary motion counted as speaking in debate,* so long as in making the motion the member makes no comment on the then-pending question."

"* *Thus a member who has exhausted the number of speeches permitted him on a main motion may still seek recognition to move its referral or amendment, for example. In such a case the chair should grant limited recognition by saying, “The member has exhausted his right to debate. For what purpose does he rise?”"

(RONR, 11th ed., p. 389, lines 7-10 & footnote)

In my opinion, your rule (as opposed to the rule in RONR) plainly states that each amendment offered to the main question counts as a speech on the main question, and therefore (absent some other relevant rule or fact that we don't know about) the chair should have ruled that the member's point of order is well-taken and the third amendment by the same member was out of order.

[Tim Wynn]

The only thing worse than adopting that rule would be hesitating to speech it out of existence. For the purpose of the previous sentence, a speech shall be considered a motion to amend something previously adopted.

[Sean Hunt]

The council's standing rules provide the following:

"No member shall speak more than twice during the same day to the same question, no longer than seven (7) minutes for the first speech on a question and five (5) minutes for a second speech on the same question. For the purpose of this rule, the making of a motion other than a point of personal privilege or point of order shall be considered a speech."

This seems quite clear to me. An amendment would count as a speech.