Rights of Non-Members to Speak

[Guest Craig Waddell]

Are people who are not members of the deliberative body entitled to speak during deliberations (other than at the invitation of the presiding officer or of the full assembly)?  Please note that the question is about being entitled to speak, not about being allowed to speak.

 

I can't find this in Robert’s Rules of Order, perhaps because it's assumed that participants in deliberation will be members of the assembly.  However, I did find the below question and answer on "Parliamentary Procedure: Toward the Good Order of the University: Advice from Dr. John A. Cagle, 
Parliamentarian of the Academic Senate
and Professor Emeritus of Communication
at California State University, Fresno” http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/cagle-p3.htm

 

What do others think?

 

Question:  Do visitors have the privilege to speak at a council meeting whether they address or do not address the chair?  Or is the privilege given to members only?  My research and experience is that only members may speak.  Is Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised my best reference?  As it is silent on visitors, my interpretation is that visitors would not have the privilege of speaking.

 

Response:  You are correct that the topic is not covered generally in parliamentary manuals, but should be.

 

Only members have (a) the right to be at the meeting, ( the right to speak, © the right to vote, etc.  This principle is firm and clear.

 

Therefore, whatever “non-member” access is permitted is at the pleasure of the organization, committee, board, or whatever.  Remember that organizations and committees must work within the context of federal, state, local, and bylaws or articles of incorporation, and all of them would have a higher authority than any parliamentary procedure manual.  Sometimes out of this legal framework will come requirements for open meetings (e.g., a city council), even a requirement to provide some opportunity for the public (i.e., non-members) to speak on any issue on the agenda.  Similarly, the practice and tradition of an organization may allow non-members to attend meetings and to speak and so forth.  There is a strong “democratic” tradition in our country that gives people the idea they can speak anywhere, and out of this value people in groups often get indignant if told they aren’t members and can’t therefore speak.

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/ppqa10.htm

[jstackpo]

Dr. Cagel is correct (whoever he may be.) Although he seems to have missed the footnote on p. 263.

 

But a (small) correction to your initial question:  the president, on his/her own does not have the right/power to invite a non-member to speak.  Such an invitation is a membership (majority or 2/3 depending...) decision.

[Chris Harrison]

Sounds good to me.  I would also refer to RONR p. 648 which says "Any nonmembers allowed in the hall during a meeting, as guests of the organization, have no rights with reference to the proceedings" and p. 644 which says "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control its hall while meetings are in progress...Nonmembers, on the other hand - or a particular nonmember or group of nonmembers - can be excluded at any time from part or all of a meeting of a society, or from all of its meetings."  Of course, as was pointed out applicable laws or higher ranked rules may give nonmembers rights which the default RONR position doesn't.

[Gary Novosielski]

Are people who are not members of the deliberative body entitled to speak during deliberations (other than at the invitation of the presiding officer or of the full assembly)?  Please note that the question is about being entitled to speak, not about being allowed to speak.

 

No.  Under the rules in RONR, people have no right even to attend, much less speak at, meetings of bodies of which they are not members.

 

By a majority vote, however, the body may permit/invite non-members to attend, and even to address the body during the meeting, but not during deliberations.

 

Allowing non-members to participate in actual debate would require a suspension of the rules, which requires a 2/3 vote.

 

Under no circumstances may the body permit non-members to vote.