Order of discussion

[Guest Christine Austin]

After a motion has been presented, are there rules that govern the order of discussion? I seem to recall asking for opposition first. This seems logical since the motion already has at least two supporters and there is no need for further discussion if no one is in opposition of the motion. However, I can't find a reference in RR. 

 

 

[George Mervosh]

After a motion has been presented, are there rules that govern the order of discussion? I seem to recall asking for opposition first. This seems logical since the motion already has at least two supporters and there is no need for further discussion if no one is in opposition of the motion. However, I can't find a reference in RR. 

 

The maker of the motion has the right to speak to it first, and debate cannot be closed without a proper motion to do so, or unless it ends naturally with no one wanting to say anything else. It's not the chair's decision.  See RONR (11th ed.) pp. 29-31

[Josh Martin]

After a motion has been presented, are there rules that govern the order of discussion? I seem to recall asking for opposition first. This seems logical since the motion already has at least two supporters and there is no need for further discussion if no one is in opposition of the motion. However, I can't find a reference in RR. 

 

There are rules on this subject, but opposition is not asked for first. Generally speaking, the first person to seek recognition gets to speak, but there are some rules regarding preference in recognition when two or more members seek recognition at about the same time. Some of the most basic and common of these rules are as follows, in order of priority:

• The motion maker has preference in recognition over other members if he has not yet spoken in debate. This means that the motion maker may speak first if he wishes to do so.
• A member who has not yet spoken in debate has preference in recognition over a member who has already spoken once.
• To the extent possible, the chair should attempt to alternate between members speaking in favor of the motion and members speaking against it.

See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 379-381 for more information on this topic.

 

Also, it is not necessarily correct that "the motion already has at least two supporters." Seconding a motion merely indicates that the member wishes the motion to come before the assembly. It does not necessarily mean that he supports it. In some case, a member may second a motion because he wishes the assembly to go on record as defeating it.

[Tom Coronite]

After a motion has been presented, are there rules that govern the order of discussion? I seem to recall asking for opposition first. This seems logical since the motion already has at least two supporters and there is no need for further discussion if no one is in opposition of the motion. However, I can't find a reference in RR. 

 

Nobody speaking in opposition to the motion does not necessarily indicate there is no opposition to the motion.  It's quite possible there are many members sitting quietly not voicing their opposition, planning to vote against the motion.  They may very well be swayed by further discussion, hearing why others support the motion.