Ending Discussion

[Tom Coronite]

Recently a guest asked a question about a topic for discussion on an agenda, and whether a motion was needed to start the discussions. There was a motion made and it was defeated, so a majority of folks didn't want to discuss it.

 

Makes me wonder, in a situation where discussion without a pending main motion is proper, what is the correct procedure for ending the discussion?

 

You can't call the previous question when there isn't one.  Is it proper to propose a limit to debate after the discussion is started and make that limit be right now? Even if a majority want it to stop and therefore keep silent, what stops a vocal minority from keeping the discussion going against the will of the majority?

[Edgar Guest]

Makes me wonder, in a situation where discussion without a pending main motion is proper, what is the correct procedure for ending the discussion?

A member could make a motion to actually do something. It would turn discussion into debate.

[Richard Brown]

Recently a guest asked a question about a topic for discussion on an agenda, and whether a motion was needed to start the discussions. There was a motion made and it was defeated, so a majority of folks didn't want to discuss it.

 

Makes me wonder, in a situation where discussion without a pending main motion is proper, what is the correct procedure for ending the discussion?

 

You can't call the previous question when there isn't one.  Is it proper to propose a limit to debate after the discussion is started and make that limit be right now? Even if a majority want it to stop and therefore keep silent, what stops a vocal minority from keeping the discussion going against the will of the majority?

 

I think  1st Church's highlighted question is a good question.  I, too, would like an answer.  Even though a motion for the previous question (or to end debate) may not sound like precisely the best way, it sounds like a reasonable way to do it.

 

A member could make a motion to actually do something. It would turn discussion into debate.

Can we assume for the purpose of this discussion that a member doesn't want to make a motion to do something yet?  Let's assume he wants to hear some more discussion before deciding whether to offer a motion to actually do something about what is being discussed..

[Edgar Guest]

Can we assume for the purpose of this discussion that a member doesn't want to make a motion to do something yet?  Let's assume he wants to hear some more discussion before deciding whether to offer a motion to actually do something about what is being discussed..

 

If he's in the minority I'd say he's out of luck. He should probably go across the street to the tavern and continue his discussion with the bartender. They're paid to listen. 

[Richard Brown]

If he's in the minority I'd say he's out of luck. He should probably go across the street to the tavern and continue his discussion with the bartender. They're paid to listen. 

But that still doesn't answer 1st Church's question about the proper method to terminate the discussion at the meeting.  For example, what type of motion should be made?  What would the vote requirement be?  Can the chairman terminate the discussion on his own?

[Edgar Guest]

For example, what type of motion should be made?

 

A motion to do something about whatever was being discussed.

 

Or any motion (e.g. a motion to adjourn).

 

I would think a motion takes precedence over no motion.

[Guest Dave Bennett]

I would think this is in the control of the Chair or the Assembly. "ROR Pg 34 (7), Under parlimentary procedure, strictly speaking, discussion of any subject is permitted only with reference to a pending motion." The Chair should rule any such discussion out of order. In the absence of the Chair not taking action, any member may call for Orders of the Day.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"In general, for a member to speak when no question is pending, without promptly leading to a motion, implies an unusual circumstance and requires permission of the assembly." (RONR 11th ed., p. 396, ll. 6-8)

 

I think a Request For Any Other Privilege would be appropriate in this situation. (p. 299)

[Tom Coronite]

Makes me wonder, in a situation where discussion without a pending main motion is proper, what is the correct procedure for ending the discussion?

 

 

There are situations in which discussion is proper without a pending motion. Consider informal procedures in small boards.  So I don't know that the answer is to say the discussion shouldn't be taking place or requires special permission.

[Richard Brown]

Folks, don't forget we are talking about a small board where discussion without a motion is permissible when no other business is pending.  I think some people are losing sight of that.  See page 488 lines 7-8:  "Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending."

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Folks, don't forget we are talking about a small board where discussion without a motion is permissible when no other business is pending.  I think some people are losing sight of that.  See page 488 lines 7-8:  "Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending."

 

Does the word "permitted" in this citation imply that the assembly granted permission? Then could the assembly no longer grant permission?

[Guest Dave Bennett]

It wasn't made clear that this is a small board. Not being familiar with the size of the 1st Church, I would usually refer to the ROR section noted. I guess I should have questioned the size of the Board.

[Richard Brown]

Does the word "permitted" in this citation imply that the assembly granted permission? Then could the assembly no longer grant permission?

I don't think it implies that the assembly granted permission.  I think it means the members (or a member) may start discussing something without a motion just as in those situations where new business is in order and any member can make a motion.

 

I believe the question is, "What is the proper procedure to use to stop the discussion on an item which is being discussed without a pending motion per the authority granted by lines 8-9 on page 488?

 

Edited to add:  I guess a second question could be, "Is a motion to discuss something" required by the language I quoted above, or may a member or members simply start discussing something (without a motion to do anything) during a lull in the proceedings when no other motion is pending?   Or is a "motion to discuss something informally" necessary?   And then what is the procedure for ending the discussion?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I think it's interesting that of the seven rules for small boards, the informal discussion rule is the only one with the word "permitted" in it.

[DanielEHayes]

Can't you just Call for the Orders of the Day or do the small board rules flatten that? "As soon as it is evident that the agenda, program, or order of business is being varied from, or that the time for the consideration of a postponed motion has arrived or passed, a Call for the Orders of the Day is in order whenever no question is pending." RONR(11th ed.), P.221, ll-29-33.

[Tom Coronite]

It wasn't made clear that this is a small board. Not being familiar with the size of the 1st Church, I would usually refer to the ROR section noted. I guess I should have questioned the size of the Board.

 

It's a question about any scenario in which discussion without a pending motion is proper.  

 

It's not a specific question about our church, which not surprisingly, has decidedly more than 12 members.

[Tom Coronite]

A motion to do something about whatever was being discussed.

 

Or any motion (e.g. a motion to adjourn).

 

I would think a motion takes precedence over no motion.

 

 

Can't you just Call for the Orders of the Day or do the small board rules flatten that? "As soon as it is evident that the agenda, program, or order of business is being varied from, or that the time for the consideration of a postponed motion has arrived or passed, a Call for the Orders of the Day is in order whenever no question is pending." RONR(11th ed.), P.221, ll-29-33.

 

These both certainly make sense.

[DanielEHayes]

These both certainly make sense.

HEY..don't rely on me for sense...I am asking a question.. I don't have squat for a grasp on if Call for Orders of the Day applies to small boards or not..

[DrEntropy]

In my own experience,  I find that the best way as a member to end formal discussion is to as Mr Guest suggested: Make a motion for concrete action on the topic, or to send the matter to a committee if I don't have any ideas along those lines.  Or, since there is no pending question, perhaps this is my chance to propose action on a completely new topic. OR finally, simply move to adjourn.  (I am presuming this is happening during new business. If not, then I suppose a call for the orders of the day should get things moving again on the order of business).   

[Guest Cindy]

I would think this is in the control of the Chair or the Assembly. "ROR Pg 34 (7), Under parlimentary procedure, strictly speaking, discussion of any subject is permitted only with reference to a pending motion." The Chair should rule any such discussion out of order. In the absence of the Chair not taking action, any member may call for Orders of the Day.

Note this discussion was an approved agenda item. How can the chair then rule it out of order. All members voted to accept the agenda inclusive the discussion item.

[Tom Coronite]

I started this separate thread specifically so as not to confuse the issue you (guest Cindy) raised in yours.  To be clear, I was asking a more general question that did not include the detail of an approved agenda item.

[Richard Brown]

A couple of people have suggested a call for the orders of the day as a way to end discussion and move on.  I question whether that is a proper method since informal discussion of an item without a motion pending is specifically permitted by the small board rules.  There is nothing out of order about it, especially if it is during new business or for the good of the order.  This is especially so in the case of Guest Cindy's situation described in the other thread, where the discussion item is actually listed on the agenda.  Using a call for the orders of the day to "move on" doesn't strike me as appropriate when that item IS the proper item to be discussing.

 

I also don't think the chairman can unilaterally prohibit or terminate the discussion since the small board rules specifically permit informal discussion of a matter when no motion is pending.

 

Nobody has yet answered what I see as the two fundamental questions presented by this issue:  First, how to start such an informal discussion and, second, how to end it.

 

First, as to how to start the discussion:  Is a formal motion to open discussion on a topic necessary?  Let's say a member wants to discuss the condition of the clubhouse and whether it needs to be painted, but he specifically does not make a motion to paint it.  Must he make a motion to discuss it by saying something like, "Mr. Chairman, I that we open a discussion on the condition of the clubhouse and whether it needs to be painted"?    Since it's a small board, no second is necessary.  If there is no objection, I assume that discussion would then occur.    I further assume that if there is an objection, the chair would put to a vote the "question" of whether to discuss the condition of the clubhouse and that a majority vote would be required in order for the discussion to take place.

 

Or, rather than making a formal motion to discuss the clubhouse, could a member simply start discussing it when no other motion is pending, perhaps by saying, "Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss the condition of the clubhouse.  The toilets don't flush well, the heat isn't working and the paint is peeling.  i think we need to discuss whether we should start putting some money aside for repairs and maybe schedule a couple of work weekends".  Would that be sufficient to start the discussion?   It strikes me as being equivalent to an actual motion to discuss the issue.  But,what if there is an objection, and another member says, "Well, our member who usually looks after the clubhouse isn't here tonight and I don't think we should discuss it without him."    Is the "question" of discussing the clubhouse then put to a vote?   Would a motion to postpone the discussion be appropriate?  Remember, no motion is pending....there is only informal discussion.  It seems to me that such a motion would be proper.   What about a motion to refer the "discussion" to a committee?   It seems to me that such a motion arising out of the discussion would likewise be proper.

 

As to the question of how to terminate the discussion, assuming no one has objected to it and it has been going on for ten or fifteen minutes.  And nobody moves to refer it to a committee.  How is the discussion ended if the member who started the discussion isn't yet ready to end it?   Is a motion for the previous question in order since there is no motion... no question.... pending?   There is only discussion.  Or would it be appropriate for a member to move to....gasp.... dare I say it.... make a motion that isn't specifically mentioned in RONR to "terminate the discussion on this issue"? 

 

It seems to me that either option would be appropriate, but I have a question about using a "Motion to terminate the discussion":  particularly as to the vote required.  Imagine this scenario:    "Mr. Chairman, I move that we terminate the discussion on this issue".  Discussion could end at that point by unanimous consent if there is no objection.  But, what if there an objection to ending the discussion?     Would the motion to end discussion require a two-thirds vote as does the motion for the previous question, or could it be adopted with a majority vote?  

[Hieu H. Huynh]

"I request that we end this discussion and move on to the next topic."

[Richard Brown]

"I request that we end this discussion and move on to the next topic."

To which I object. 

[DanielEHayes]

"I request that we end this discussion and move on to the next topic."

I dont think this is a small board so I think we would need a second. To which I will second so Mr Brown can then object...and then we can begin discussion...