Request for any other privilege

[mikalac]

Pg. 299. If I want to provide information that I think is useful, no question pending, is this the proper vehicle? Something like, "I request to provide information that will help the chair to .... ."

 

I assume that if a question is pending, the above request would be out of order. In this case, I would have to offer the information in debate, which would count as 1 of my 2 rights to speak on the question.

 

Thanks again for your help.

[Transpower]

Yes.

[Guest Nancy N.]

... I assume that if a question is pending, the above request would be out of order. ...

 

Why?  Such requests are incidental motions.  Do not p. 292, SDC's 1, 2, and maybe (but not likely) 3, apply?

[Josh Martin]

Why?  Such requests are incidental motions.  Do not p. 292, SDC's 1, 2, and maybe (but not likely) 3, apply?

 

A Request for Any Other Privilege is certainly in order while a motion is pending. When used for this specific purpose however, I believe it would generally require a 2/3 vote (if it came to a vote). Such a request would generally conflict with one or more rules, but I suppose I would need to know the nature of the pending motion and of the "useful information" to say for sure.

[Guest Nancy N.]

.... When used for this specific purpose however, I believe it would generally require a 2/3 vote (if it came to a vote).

 

Why? Is it because --

 

 

... Such a request would generally conflict with one or more rules, ...

 

-- ?  Do you have any particular rules, or group of rules, in mind?

 

Any replys would be appreciaed.  TIA

[Josh Martin]

Why? Is it because --

 

 

 

-- ?  Do you have any particular rules, or group of rules, in mind?

 

Any replys would be appreciaed.  TIA

 

For instance, if the member has exhausted his right to speak in debate on the pending motion, and the "information" he wishes to give is basically debate on the pending motion.

[Guest Nancy N.]

For instance, if the member has exhausted his right to speak in debate on the pending motion, and the "information" he wishes to give is basically debate on the pending motion.

 

Thanks; the example clarifies it well.

[Gary Novosielski]

This is, I believe the principal reason that the Point of Information, familiar to readers of earlier editions, was changed to Request for Information in the latest.  People were "raising" Points of Information in order to inject their own opinions (often called, by them, "facts"), without being counted as having spoken in debate (because their "facts" were unquestionably true, and therefore undebatable).

[mikalac]

This is, I believe the principal reason that the Point of Information, familiar to readers of earlier editions, was changed to Request for Information in the latest.  People were "raising" Points of Information in order to inject their own opinions (often called, by them, "facts"), without being counted as having spoken in debate (because their "facts" were unquestionably true, and therefore undebatable).

Although Req for Info is different from the Req. for Other Priv., the subject of this thread, you raise an interesting possibility. In RR 11th, the author treats Pt. of Info equal to Req. for Info., so there is really no substantive change from earlier editions. Therefore, I still have the ability to misuse this Request to get in my "facts" without being penalized a right to speak, if the chair falls for the ruse and replies "The member will state his point." instead of "The member will state his question.

[Edgar Guest]

I still have the ability to misuse this Request to get in my "facts" without being penalized a right to speak, if the chair falls for the ruse and replies "The member will state his point." instead of "The member will state his question.

 

Yes, you have demonstrated the ability to act like you don't know the rules.

[Timothy]

Although Req for Info is different from the Req. for Other Priv., the subject of this thread, you raise an interesting possibility. In RR 11th, the author treats Pt. of Info equal to Req. for Info., so there is really no substantive change from earlier editions. Therefore, I still have the ability to misuse this Request to get in my "facts" without being penalized a right to speak, if the chair falls for the ruse and replies "The member will state his point." instead of "The member will state his question.

 

I do not follow your logic.

[Josh Martin]

Although Req for Info is different from the Req. for Other Priv., the subject of this thread, you raise an interesting possibility. In RR 11th, the author treats Pt. of Info equal to Req. for Info., so there is really no substantive change from earlier editions. Therefore, I still have the ability to misuse this Request to get in my "facts" without being penalized a right to speak, if the chair falls for the ruse and replies "The member will state his point." instead of "The member will state his question.

 

The goal is that the term "Request for Information" more clearly indicates that this is a question. Nothing's perfect, and it is certainly correct that members and chairs may still do things incorrectly. It is also possible that unethical members would abuse their knowledge and the chair's ignorance to try to gain an advantage by intentionally using this motion incorrectly.

[mikalac]

The goal is that the term "Request for Information" more clearly indicates that this is a question. Nothing's perfect, and it is certainly correct that members and chairs may still do things incorrectly. It is also possible that unethical members would abuse their knowledge and the chair's ignorance to try to gain an advantage by intentionally using this motion incorrectly.

Which is what I said, but you say it more succinctly. I used the words "misuse" and "ruse" to indicate that an unethical member could get his/her way if the chair is not alert enough to watch his response.

 

The rhetorical question to "Why didn't the authors remove "Point of Information" to prevent possible abuse?" is answered by the rhetorical answer, "Because the authors assumed that everyone involved in the meeting is honest."

[Josh Martin]

RESPONSE TO ORIGINAL POST

 

A corollary question I have is this: Why didn't the authors of RR11 remove "Point of Information" entirely from this edition? That would have left no room for misuse.

 

The motion which is now known as Request for Information has been known as Point of Information for quite some time, and that usage is still quite widespread. Pretty much all assemblies I've seen except organizations of parliamentarians still call it Point of Information (and even parliamentarians frequently use the older term out of habit). Removing widely-used language would confuse members who are familiar only with the wording in the book and encounter the other term. Additionally, I do not think it would have "left no room for misuse." People somehow always seem to find room for misuse, even when the text is unambiguous.

 

RESPONSE TO NEW POST

 

The rhetorical question to "Why didn't the authors remove "Point of Information" to prevent possible abuse?" is answered by the rhetorical answer, "Because the authors assumed that everyone involved in the meeting is honest."

 

It is entirely correct that, as a general rule, the authorship team assumes that most of the members of an organization are honest (although not everyone - Ch. XX exists for a reason). I think there are, however, additional reasons for why the phrase "Point of Information" is included in the discussion of "Request for Information."

[Edgar Guest]

The rhetorical question to "Why didn't the authors remove "Point of Information" to prevent possible abuse?" is answered by the rhetorical answer, "Because the authors assumed that everyone involved in the meeting is honest."

 

This is one of those rare instances when one wishes The Wrathful One would exercise his use of the padlock.