Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Limiting Board Member Questions


Guest Pat McDougle

Recommended Posts

The following two questions relate to a twenty-four member executive board:

1. Is there a rule or guidance for a chair in permitting questions to be asked on reports given orally at a meeting?

2.  If the chair stops questions in order to continue with the agenda, have the rights of members been denied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.  An RONR rule?  I don't think so.  (Perhaps RONR assumes that all reports are so clearly written and presented that no questions are EVER called for.  Yeah, right!)

 

2. Well I suppose any member could raise a point of order, but in the absence of a rule (far as I can tell) it would be hard to tell what rule had been broken.

 

The chair, in #2, could be considered as "Calling for the Orders of the Day" - p. 219  -  in which case it would require a 2/3 vote to continue the (informal) questions.

 

If, however, the report has resulted in a motion on the floor, arising out of the report, and the "questions" are in reality debate, then the regular debate, &c., rules apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is there a rule or guidance for a chair in permitting questions to be asked on reports given orally at a meeting?

 

A member is free to raise a Request for Information in regards to a report. The chair cannot refuse to permit a proper Request for Information.

 

2.  If the chair stops questions in order to continue with the agenda, have the rights of members been denied?

 

Assuming members are asking proper Requests for Information, yes, I think so. A member should raise a Point of Order if the chair tries this, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

 

1.  An RONR rule?  I don't think so.  (Perhaps RONR assumes that all reports are so clearly written and presented that no questions are EVER called for.  Yeah, right!)

 

2. Well I suppose any member could raise a point of order, but in the absence of a rule (far as I can tell) it would be hard to tell what rule had been broken.

 

The chair, in #2, could be considered as "Calling for the Orders of the Day" - p. 219  -  in which case it would require a 2/3 vote to continue the (informal) questions.

 

If, however, the report has resulted in a motion on the floor, arising out of the report, and the "questions" are in reality debate, then the regular debate, &c., rules apply.

 

What? I see no reason why members cannot ask Requests for Information in regards to a report, nor do I agree that Call for the Orders of the Day can be used to put a stop to such requests, so long as they are legitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with Mr. Martin, what can be done is for the presiding officer to make sure the member is indeed making a proper Request for Information, and ensuring that it doesn't turn into a back and forth full debate on each question asked.  This includes the member asking the question, and the member answering it.  A little careful presiding, while ensuring the riights of the members to raise proper questions, helps to keep things moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if a Board receives a number of reports at each meeting, it may be beneficial for the Board to adopt a rule specifically allowing for discussion of reports.  However, unless a report has recommendations, there should be little discussion.  There is nothing that the Board is going to do with the report then to 'file it' and gthis gets done automatically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if a Board receives a number of reports at each meeting, it may be beneficial for the Board to adopt a rule specifically allowing for discussion of reports. However, unless a report has recommendations, there should be little discussion. There is nothing that the Board is going to do with the report then to 'file it' and this gets done automatically.

 

You seem to be arguing with yourself here. You say in your first sentence that it may be beneficial for the board to adopt a rule allowing for discussion of reports, but in your next two sentences you provide reasons why such a rule would not be beneficial. I agree with the latter sentences. :)

 

It is already permitted for members to ask questions about a report, but permitting actual debate or discussion on a report for information only does not seem advisable for a board of this size. If the report contains recommendations, then the motion(s) to adopt those recommendations will be debatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? I see no reason why members cannot ask Requests for Information in regards to a report, nor do I agree that Call for the Orders of the Day can be used to put a stop to such requests, so long as they are legitimate.

 

Because the first of those motions (Request...) comes into play (as an incidental motion) only when there is a formal debate/discussion about a main motion put forward for consideration.

 

Not during "committee reports" when nothing has been proposed for consideration.

 

And "Call for Orders..." is the proper device to use when the assembly has drifted away from the proper order of business, which, during committee reports is to receive reports, not cross examine the reporting member.

 

That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is already permitted for members to ask questions about a report, but permitting actual debate or discussion on a report for information only does not seem advisable for a board of this size. If the report contains recommendations, then the motion(s) to adopt those recommendations will be debatable.

 

So I can question a report, but I cannot debate it?  Sounds like a contradiction in terms too Josh.  My point was (and is) that while there should be little discussion - if any - on a report that only provides information, the Board is free to create its own rules regarding this.

 

It all comes down to the contents of the report.  Some reports will be presented and filed without any need for questions/comments (for very little), others will require a decision (because they contain recommendations), and others may be used for decision making later in the meeting (which would mean that they would essentially be 'debated.')

 

An example of a report that contains no recommendations, but may create discussion - either on its own, or later in the meeting - is the Treasurer's Report.  The Treasuer's Report may generate discussion on itself (i.e. about how the money was spent) or be relevant to issues later in the meeting (i.e. "How can we rebuild the roof when there is only $1000 in the bank?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the first of those motions (Request...) comes into play (as an incidental motion) only when there is a formal debate/discussion about a main motion put forward for consideration.

 

Not during "committee reports" when nothing has been proposed for consideration.

 

Where does RONR say this? It looks to me that it says "A Request for Information (also called a Point of Information) is a request directed to the chair, or through the chair to another officer or member, for information relevant to the business at hand but not related to parliamentary procedure." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 295) The phrase "relevant to the business at hand" seems broad enough to permit questions regarding a report for information only.

 

So I can question a report, but I cannot debate it?  Sounds like a contradiction in terms too Josh.  My point was (and is) that while there should be little discussion - if any - on a report that only provides information, the Board is free to create its own rules regarding this.

 

It all comes down to the contents of the report.  Some reports will be presented and filed without any need for questions/comments (for very little), others will require a decision (because they contain recommendations), and others may be used for decision making later in the meeting (which would mean that they would essentially be 'debated.')

 

An example of a report that contains no recommendations, but may create discussion - either on its own, or later in the meeting - is the Treasurer's Report.  The Treasuer's Report may generate discussion on itself (i.e. about how the money was spent) or be relevant to issues later in the meeting (i.e. "How can we rebuild the roof when there is only $1000 in the bank?")

 

It's not a contradiction at all. "Until a matter has been brought before the assembly in the form of a motion proposing a specific action, it cannot be debated." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 386) This rule exists for a very good reason. While asking a few questions won't derail the assembly's business, allowing open-ended discussion on a report is another thing entirely. If action becomes necessary because of a report, even if the report does not propose action, the appropriate course of action is for a member to make a motion, and then that motion is debatable. While it is entirely correct that a larger board or assembly can adopt rules permitting it to function similarly to a committee or small board in this regard (at least with respect to reports for information only), I do not agree that such a rule would be advisable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...