Guest Curious Member Posted March 6, 2012 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 02:45 PM When is it acceptable, or is it, to stop recognizing a speaker during a meeting, who otherwise has the floor and whose time has not expired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:09 PM Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:09 PM Care to provide more details of what happened? Because this sounds like a trick question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest original asker Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:35 PM Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:35 PM Care to provide more details of what happened? Because this sounds like a trick question...Unfortuently I don't have much more information than that. I'm involved with a couple groups and while I have more knowledge than most in regards to Robert's I am by no means an expert or a certified parlimintarian. This question was basically how it was presented to me.The chair wanted to stop a member from speakingon something that he felt didn't need to be discussed during the meeting. Now I don't know when or where this was being discussed so that complicates things as to whether or not it was even germeane. I did state that he technically does have to recogize each member who wishes to speak and can't outright ignore him. I'm going to pressume it wasn't selective censorship on a matter, but rather a topic that belonged in a committee or otherwise was not pertitent for disucssion of the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:38 PM Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:38 PM When is it acceptable, or is it, to stop recognizing a speaker during a meeting, who otherwise has the floor and whose time has not expired?Recognition of a speaker, as I would use the term, is not an ongoing thing. The chair recognizes a member who wishes to speak (make a motion, or in debate on one), and by so doing gives the member exclusive right to be heard at that time. (p. 29 ll. 11-15). If the speaker has the floor and his time has not expired, with the exception of a few parliamentary steps which can interrupt him, his "recognition" continues until he stops or his time expires.The chair could interrupt him, perhaps even calling him to order, if his remarks become not germane to the pending question, or if he violates decorum, but otherwise, I'm not sure what else to say.The chair wanted to stop a member from speakingon something that he felt didn't need to be discussed during the meeting.I guess I'd have to ask if the member was given the floor to speak without there being a motion pending. That is not the norm, although in certain instances (Good of the Order, for instance) it may be allowed. But if the assembly allows it, or it is customary to allow such speaking out without a motion pending, I don't think the chair can cut off a validly recognized (by the chair) speaker just because of the topic being spoken on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 03:40 PM If Curious M's "speaker" was just sounding off when there was no motion on the floor, then it is fair game to stop him/her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 6, 2012 at 04:17 PM Report Share Posted March 6, 2012 at 04:17 PM Bascially, if there is a motion on the floor, the member has the right to debate it once. If there is no motion before the group, any member may be recognized in order to make a motion. If the Chairman refuses to recognize a member who has the right to the floor, any member could make a Point of Order. If the Chairman still refuses to recognize the member, the ruling could be appealed and the group can decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.