Out of Order calls

[Guest Leon]

We have a person who repeatedly interruptive.  She is not running the meeting but in the middle of preliminary discussion she will state "there is a motion, is there any further discussion?"  As the meeting chair I should call her "out of order" but I generally just get her attention and continue the ongoing discussion.  This same person will simply make a motion in the middle of discussion.  i always try to have some early discussion and at an appropriate time state that "a motion is in order".  Is this the best practice or should she be called our of order?  Thanks

[Gary Novosielski]

No discussion is in order before a motion is made, so the point at which a motion is in order is before any discussion takes place, not in the middle.  There are some motions that can be made during the debate (discussion) phase, such as a motion to Amend the main motion, but I get the sense that's not what's happening here.

 

As for her other behavior, you might want to catch her before or after a meeting and remind her to stick to debate.  If you have to address her behavior during the meeting, make it impersonal, such as "the member will please restrict herself to debate on the merits of the motion and allow the chair to handle procedural matters."

 

In any case, if a member makes a motion that is incorrect or violates procedure, then it is what they have said or moved that is out or order, and not the member herself.  You would only call a member out of order if she were actually out of control and violating the rules of decorum.

[Rev Ed]

We have a person who repeatedly interruptive.  She is not running the meeting but in the middle of preliminary discussion she will state "there is a motion, is there any further discussion?"  As the meeting chair I should call her "out of order" but I generally just get her attention and continue the ongoing discussion.  This same person will simply make a motion in the middle of discussion.  i always try to have some early discussion and at an appropriate time state that "a motion is in order".  Is this the best practice or should she be called our of order?  Thanks

 

It sounds like you are getting things wrong, as there should be no discussion prior to the making of a motion.  Sometimes the Chairman can allow discussion first (for example, for the annual acceptance of the financial statements, the Treasurer can make his/her report - i.e. present the financial statements - then take question before a motion to approve is made), technically a motion is required first.

 

However, what do you mean by 'preliminary discussion'?  If you mean that someone makes a statement about the issue at hand and then makes the motion, as Chairman I would allow this to occur if the assembly finds it beneficial. 

 

However, this member should not be calling for the vote if no motion has been made.  But if she does, which is implied to me when she says "there is a motion, is there any further discussion?", you could then ask her if she is making a motion to end debate and commence voting.  If she says yes, you can ask for a seconder, and then a vote to close debate.  If she says no, after awhile she may get the point.

[Josh Martin]

We have a person who repeatedly interruptive.  She is not running the meeting but in the middle of preliminary discussion she will state "there is a motion, is there any further discussion?"  As the meeting chair I should call her "out of order" but I generally just get her attention and continue the ongoing discussion.  This same person will simply make a motion in the middle of discussion.  i always try to have some early discussion and at an appropriate time state that "a motion is in order".  Is this the best practice or should she be called our of order?  Thanks

 

The member's comments about a motion being made (which are really your job) are indeed out of order, but it sounds like you aren't doing things right either. Discussion is not in order until a motion has been made (except in a committee or small board).

 

As for the member making a motion, this seems to be perfectly in order. You should immediately cease this practice of having early discussion before stating that a motion is in order. Even if this is a committee or small board (where discussion without a motion is permitted), it is still in order for members to make motions if they wish. Members are not required to wait until it is, in the chair's opinion, an "appropriate time" to make a motion on a subject.

 

It sounds like you are getting things wrong, as there should be no discussion prior to the making of a motion.  Sometimes the Chairman can allow discussion first (for example, for the annual acceptance of the financial statements, the Treasurer can make his/her report - i.e. present the financial statements - then take question before a motion to approve is made), technically a motion is required first.

 

To be clear, questions are in order in such a case, but discussion is not (until a motion is made). Additionally, it is the report of the auditors, not the Treasurer, which is placed before the assembly for consideration. If the Treasurer presents an unaudited report, the appropriate course of action is for the chair to refer it to the auditors. 

 

However, what do you mean by 'preliminary discussion'?  If you mean that someone makes a statement about the issue at hand and then makes the motion, as Chairman I would allow this to occur if the assembly finds it beneficial. 

 

I wouldn't - but it seems like the chair is permitting a great deal more discussion than a member making a single statement before making a motion.

[Rev Ed]

I wouldn't - but it seems like the chair is permitting a great deal more discussion than a member making a single statement before making a motion.

 

It sounds like that to me too.  But the member in question cannot move the previous question when there is no previous question.

[Josh Martin]

It sounds like that to me too.  But the member in question cannot move the previous question when there is no previous question.

 

Right. The appropriate course of action would be for the member to raise a Point of Order.

[Guest Leon]

It is a small committee of 5 and preliminary discussion is often allowed on a subject on the agenda.  Facts brought out in the preliminary discussion often determines what the motion will be.  Seems more efficient for such a small committee instead of a motion that gets amended several times.

[Bruce Lages]

That procedure is perfectly proper in small boards and committees, which usually use the relaxed rules in RONR for such groups (p. 500, l. 9 -21).

[Josh Martin]

It is a small committee of 5 and preliminary discussion is often allowed on a subject on the agenda.  Facts brought out in the preliminary discussion often determines what the motion will be.  Seems more efficient for such a small committee instead of a motion that gets amended several times.

 

Okay. Nonetheless, if a member does make a motion, you can't rule it out of order just because you think the committee should have more discussion first.

[Gary Novosielski]

It is a small committee of 5 and preliminary discussion is often allowed on a subject on the agenda.  Facts brought out in the preliminary discussion often determines what the motion will be.  Seems more efficient for such a small committee instead of a motion that gets amended several times.

 

That's fine in theory, but then the question arises:  How's that workin' out for ya?  If it were as efficient as it seems, you wouldn't be asking how to handle the meeting and keep it under control. 

 

It is absolutely true that substantially relaxed rules will often work well in a small group--until they don't.  And when they don't, as when members feel free to interrupt and behave in other ways that your problem member is behaving, the way to get things back under control is to tighten up the rules.

[Rev Ed]

Of course, if you insist on a motion first, when the lady interrupts about having a vote, you have to treat it as it is:  moving the Previous Question.

[Josh Martin]

That's fine in theory, but then the question arises:  How's that workin' out for ya?  If it were as efficient as it seems, you wouldn't be asking how to handle the meeting and keep it under control. 

 

It is absolutely true that substantially relaxed rules will often work well in a small group--until they don't.  And when they don't, as when members feel free to interrupt and behave in other ways that your problem member is behaving, the way to get things back under control is to tighten up the rules.

 

The fact that one member doesn't like the way things are done doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem.

 

Even if there is an issue, generally only the parent assembly has the authority to "tighten up the rules" for a committee. The committee cannot do so unless it is authorized to adopt its own rules, and the chair certainly cannot do so on his own authority.

 

Of course, if you insist on a motion first, when the lady interrupts about having a vote, you have to treat it as it is:  moving the Previous Question.

 

Who said anything about the member interrupting about having a vote? As I saw it, the questions were about the member making motions when the committee is discussing an issue (which is in order) or stating the question on the motion she just made (which is not). The OP never said anything about the member calling for a vote.