Members' right to speak (split from topic 'Debate limit')

[Guest paul]

when we clarified our procedural by-laws to ensure each member has a right to speak we added for 5 and 3 minutes. we did it so we would not "regret" taking a basic right away because of "previous question". It is OK to limit debate or even call for the vote as long as voting members, who wish to speak, have spoken. AND, RONR is ambiguous. Good feedback, Paul 

[Richard Brown]

when we clarified our procedural by-laws to ensure each member has a right to speak we added for 5 and 3 minutes. we did it so we would not "regret" taking a basic right away because of "previous question". It is OK to limit debate or even call for the vote as long as voting members, who wish to speak, have spoken. AND, RONR is ambiguous. Good feedback, Paul

 

Paul, I don't believe any of us who are regulars on this forum believe that RONR is the least bit ambiguous when it comes to the rules for speaking in debate.  Can you give an example of what you think is ambiguous about the RONR provisions on the number and length of speeches, etc during debate? 

 

As far as taking a basic right away, that is precisely what your presiding officer did by arbitrarily limiting the members to four speakers on each side.  It doesn't  look to me like your "rule" guaranteeing every member the right to debate worked out so well, did it?

 

If your organization doesn't like a particular rule in RONR, such as the ten minute time limit on speeches, adopting a special rule of order to change it to something shorter is understandable and is perfectly fine.  But I fail to see anything ambiguous about the debate rules in RONR.  I hope you will tell us what you think is ambiguous in the debate provisions.  Maybe you are on to something that all the rest of us have overlooked.

[Gary Novosielski]

It strikes me as odd that if you went to the trouble of preventing the use of Limit Debate and the Previous Question in your bylaws, that nobody jumped to their feet with a point of order when the president proposed the limitations you described.

 

I guess that shows that changing the bylaws doesn't help much if the chair doesn't respect them and the membership doesn't defend them.

[Dan Honemann]

I suspect that Guest paul is not the same person as Guest Gaudias. Guest Gaudias strikes me as someone who would not say that RONR is ambiguous with respect to the right of members to speak.

[George Mervosh]

I suspect that Guest paul is not the same person as Guest Gaudias. Guest Gaudias strikes me as someone who would not say that RONR is ambiguous with respect to the right of members to speak.

 

paulc6, RP, has been blowing this same trumpet since the oldest days of the old forum.

[Edgar Guest]

paulc6, RP, has been blowing this same trumpet since the oldest days of the old forum.

Indeed.

 

see Roberts P244 and 255. calling the question before all members have had a chance to speak is a continuing breach and the vote is null and void and should be entertained again properly. paul

 

 

[Guest paul]

Paul, I don't believe any of us who are regulars on this forum believe that RONR is the least bit ambiguous when it comes to the rules for speaking in debate.  Can you give an example of what you think is ambiguous about the RONR provisions on the number and length of speeches, etc during debate? 

 

As far as taking a basic right away, that is precisely what your presiding officer did by arbitrarily limiting the members to four speakers on each side.  It doesn't  look to me like your "rule" guaranteeing every member the right to debate worked out so well, did it?

 

If your organization doesn't like a particular rule in RONR, such as the ten minute time limit on speeches, adopting a special rule of order to change it to something shorter is understandable and is perfectly fine.  But I fail to see anything ambiguous about the debate rules in RONR.  I hope you will tell us what you think is ambiguous in the debate provisions.  Maybe you are on to something that all the rest of us have overlooked.

Examples that create confusion: p l1 "of full and free discussion" "only 2/3 may deny"; p 3 1 thru 9; 32 thru p4 lines 1,2; p 43 lines 4 thru 6; p 251 lines 20 thru 26; p 261 lines 14 thru 17; p 264 6 thru 13; I am sure there are others plus pages that support that 2/3 can deny right to speak. We simply clarified the right by placing it in our procedural by-laws even though we use Roberts for everything (except what our laws dictate.) Paul

[Edgar Guest]

Examples that create confusion . . .

 

Additional "examples that create confusion" are your posts on this topic.

[SaintCad]

We simply clarified the right by placing it in our procedural by-laws even though we use Roberts for everything (except what our laws dictate.) Paul

But the Chair can still unilaterally determine that only 4 per side speak?  Why did no one object to this?

[Dan Honemann]

paulc6, RP, has been blowing this same trumpet since the oldest days of the old forum.

 

Isn't there some doubt about this RP business? I know it doesn't mean much, but one hopes it means something.  

[George Mervosh]

Isn't there some doubt about this RP business? I know it doesn't mean much, but one hopes it means something.  

 

There was no doubt the last time I looked it up.  

[Edgar Guest]

But the Chair can still unilaterally determine that only 4 per side speak?  Why did no one object to this?

 

Guest paul is referring to his own organization, not to Guest Gaudias'.

 

I suspect that Guest paul is not the same person as Guest Gaudias. Guest Gaudias strikes me as someone who would not say that RONR is ambiguous with respect to the right of members to speak.

[Josh Martin]

But the Chair can still unilaterally determine that only 4 per side speak? Why did no one object to this?

That happened in a different organization (the one the OP belongs to). It's still a good question, though.

Examples that create confusion: p l1 "of full and free discussion" "only 2/3 may deny"; p 3 1 thru 9; 32 thru p4 lines 1,2; p 43 lines 4 thru 6; p 251 lines 20 thru 26; p 261 lines 14 thru 17; p 264 6 thru 13; I am sure there are others plus pages that support that 2/3 can deny right to speak. We simply clarified the right by placing it in our procedural by-laws even though we use Roberts for everything (except what our laws dictate.) Paul

The rules in RONR are perfectly clear on this subject. A 2/3 vote cannot deny the right of an individual member to speak, but it can set general limits on debate or end debate for all members. I suppose if one reads a member's right to speak in debate as an absolute statement, to which there can be no exceptions, this may be confusing, but if it is read in conjunction with what is said in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 20, lines 9-16, then I don't see how it is ambiguous at all.

A society is free to adopt a special rule of order providing that the motions to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question cannot be adopted if even a single member who has not yet spoken in debate wishes to speak in debate, and such a rule supersedes the rules in RONR on this subject, but the society should not delude itself that this is necessary to "clarify" the rules in RONR.

[Guest paul]

p.264: basic rights are attend; make motions; nominate; speak in debate; give notice; vote. Which one can be taken away with a 2/3 vote? 

pg 20 9-16 does not explain away all the examples given.

But enough. Our Organisation solved it by placing the right in our procedural by-laws. Others can do the same. Thanks for the thoughtful responses, Paul 

[Bruce Lages]

Guest Paul is very selective in the text he quotes. On p. 264, he conveniently leaves out the previous part of that sentence which clearly states that the basic rights referred to, and which may not be denied by a suspension of the rules, are for any particular member.

[Josh Martin]

p.264: basic rights are attend; make motions; nominate; speak in debate; give notice; vote. Which one can be taken away with a 2/3 vote? 

General limits may be applied to the rights to make motions and speak in debate, by means of the motions to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question, as it says on pg. 264.

pg 20 9-16 does not explain away all the examples given.

Why not? It clearly states that a specific rule takes precedence over a general rule. It seems to me that it explains all of the examples.

[Guest paul]

Guest Paul is very selective in the text he quotes. On p. 264, he conveniently leaves out the previous part of that sentence which clearly states that the basic rights referred to, and which may not be denied by a suspension of the rules, are for any particular member.

selective? I gave several examples. Particular Member? Does this mean a 2/3 vote cannot stop a particular member from speaking but it can stop 1/3 of members who wish to speak from speaking?

But cannot stop, 1/3 from voting? 

[SaintCad]

selective? I gave several examples. Particular Member? Does this mean a 2/3 vote cannot stop a particular member from speaking but it can stop 1/3 of members who wish to speak from speaking?

But cannot stop, 1/3 from voting? 

I suppose that Previous Question could be used to stop a person from speaking but look at the circumstances:

It is not in order when another has the floor, so if the person were recognized they cannot be prevented from speaking.

2/3 of the people there (or to be pedantic 2/3 of the people that vote) would need to agree the person shouldn't debate.  I've seen meetings where a particular person has used up the patience of EVERY person there during the debate and a Previous Question would easily pass to shut that particular person up but guess what, these are the bodies that don't want to use RONR (usually because it "interferes" with the free-flow of ideas) and thus don't limit the speakers to two turns.

 

What absolutely cannot happen is the fallacious Calling the Question where I see my arch-enemy get recognized and so I yell out, "I call the question!" and thus unilaterally cutting off his chance to speak.

[Shmuel Gerber]

selective? I gave several examples. Particular Member? Does this mean a 2/3 vote cannot stop a particular member from speaking but it can stop 1/3 of members who wish to speak from speaking?

But cannot stop, 1/3 from voting?

 

If you are wondering whether there is a difference between speaking and voting, there is. Debate can be closed by a 2/3 vote even if not every member has had an opportunity to speak on the question, but the polls can be closed by a 2/3 vote only after every member present has had a reasonable opportunity to vote.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Examples that create confusion: p l1 "of full and free discussion" "only 2/3 may deny"; p 3 1 thru 9; 32 thru p4 lines 1,2; p 43 lines 4 thru 6; p 251 lines 20 thru 26; p 261 lines 14 thru 17; p 264 6 thru 13; I am sure there are others plus pages that support that 2/3 can deny right to speak. We simply clarified the right by placing it in our procedural by-laws even though we use Roberts for everything (except what our laws dictate.) Paul

 

Let's go through these one by one.

 

P. li:

"Ultimately, it is the majority taking part in the assembly who decide the general will, but only following upon the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion. Only two thirds or more of those present and voting may deny a minority or any member the right of such discussion."

 

This is not the least bit ambiguous. It is stated in the context of how "The rules of parliamentary law found in this book . . . are based on a regard for the rights: of the majority, of the minority, especially a strong minority—greater than one third, of individual members, of absentees, and of all these together," and it is made explicitly clear that a two-thirds vote is sufficient to close the discussion even if some members object. Thus, the assembly as a whole, and any minority of greater than one-third, cannot be deprived, by a bare majority, of a full and free discussion, but a smaller minority can be.

 

P. 3, ll. 1-9:

"A member of an assembly . . . is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings."

 

Again, closing or limiting debate on a particular motion does not individually deprive any member of a basic right in a way that would require disciplinary proceedings, but applies uniformly to all members of the assembly.

 

P. 3, l. 32 to p. 4 lines 1,2:

"Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law."

 

I don't see how this has any bearing on the topic at all.

 

P. 43, ll. 4-10:

"In the debate, each member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day,* but cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor. A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day."

"*For procedures where greater freedom of debate is desired, see 15 and 52."

 

A member does have the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day, but this right to speak a specific number of times to a question is not absolute. To see what the extent of this right is, you have to read at least the remainder of this sub-subsection, where it is explained on the next page (p. 44, ll. 6-11):

"The presiding officer cannot close debate so long as any member who has not exhausted his right to debate desires the floor, except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote (15, 16, 43).

(For additional rules and information related to debate, see 43.)"

 

P. 251, ll. 20-26 (and the surrounding text):

"The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:

. . . e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (pp. 263–64).

In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void."

 

In this cited part of the text, no direct mention is made of rights in debate, so we'll look at the text on page 264 when we get to that citation.

 

P. 261, ll. 14-17 (and the surrounding text):

"The incidental motion to Suspend the Rules:

. . . 7. Usually requires a two-thirds vote (see below, however). In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule."

 

I'm not sure which part of this rule you had in mind, but obviously the rule that debate cannot be limited or closed (before the usual limits have been reached) "except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote" (as cited above, p. 44) does not protect any minority of one-third or less.

 

P. 264, ll. 6-13:

"Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended. Thus, while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question, the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote. These basic rights may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings."

 

Again here, the book is explicit in pointing out that the right to debate is not absolute, and that generally applicable limits on debate may be imposed.

[Guest paul]

Thank you for the amount of detail you have supplied. It is good to have full debate on whether the right to speak can be taken away. It can be limited by time or frequency. Even Roberts says speaking is a basic right and cannot be suspended. The general limit on debate refers to frequency and time. Would not suspending the rights of a particular member be the same as suspending the rights of 1/3 of the voting members? 

I agree that interpreting Roberts as saying 1/3 of voting members can be prevented from speaking (even if using limited time and frequency) is an honest interpretation. Some of us don't agree or see it as inconsistent so we simply put a line in our Procedural By-law that says every member has the right to speak at least once for a set time(s). 

As to being ambiguous: There are words in Roberts (P.264 for instance) that say right to speak is a basic right and cannot be suspended. In fact says they can only be curtailed through discipline proceedings. But, in other pages do point out that 2/3 can end debate. Maybe it can be clarified in the next edition.

It is interesting to note that some of our Members, who did not want to place the wording in the By-Laws, used the argument that protecting the right was not necessary and pointed to P.264 as proof. Thanks again, I do have a clearer understanding. Paul 

[Guest paul]

Let's go through these one by one.

 

P. li:

"Ultimately, it is the majority taking part in the assembly who decide the general will, but only following upon the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion. Only two thirds or more of those present and voting may deny a minority or any member the right of such discussion."

 

This is not the least bit ambiguous. It is stated in the context of how "The rules of parliamentary law found in this book . . . are based on a regard for the rights: of the majority, of the minority, especially a strong minority—greater than one third, of individual members, of absentees, and of all these together," and it is made explicitly clear that a two-thirds vote is sufficient to close the discussion even if some members object. Thus, the assembly as a whole, and any minority of greater than one-third, cannot be deprived, by a bare majority, of a full and free discussion, but a smaller minority can be.

 

P. 3, ll. 1-9:

"A member of an assembly . . . is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, . . . the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings."

 

Again, closing or limiting debate on a particular motion does not individually deprive any member of a basic right in a way that would require disciplinary proceedings, but applies uniformly to all members of the assembly.

 

P. 3, l. 32 to p. 4 lines 1,2:

"Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law."

 

I don't see how this has any bearing on the topic at all.

 

P. 43, ll. 4-10:

"In the debate, each member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day,* but cannot make a second speech on the same question so long as any member who has not spoken on that question desires the floor. A member who has spoken twice on a particular question on the same day has exhausted his right to debate that question for that day."

"*For procedures where greater freedom of debate is desired, see 15 and 52."

 

A member does have the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day, but this right to speak a specific number of times to a question is not absolute. To see what the extent of this right is, you have to read at least the remainder of this sub-subsection, where it is explained on the next page (p. 44, ll. 6-11):

"The presiding officer cannot close debate so long as any member who has not exhausted his right to debate desires the floor, except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote (15, 16, 43).

(For additional rules and information related to debate, see 43.)"

 

P. 251, ll. 20-26 (and the surrounding text):

"The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when:

. . . e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (pp. 263–64).

In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void."

 

In this cited part of the text, no direct mention is made of rights in debate, so we'll look at the text on page 264 when we get to that citation.

 

P. 261, ll. 14-17 (and the surrounding text):

"The incidental motion to Suspend the Rules:

. . . 7. Usually requires a two-thirds vote (see below, however). In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule."

 

I'm not sure which part of this rule you had in mind, but obviously the rule that debate cannot be limited or closed (before the usual limits have been reached) "except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote" (as cited above, p. 44) does not protect any minority of one-third or less.

 

P. 264, ll. 6-13:

"Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended. Thus, while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question, the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote. These basic rights may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings."

 

Again here, the book is explicit in pointing out that the right to debate is not absolute, and that generally applicable limits on debate may be imposed.

add: p.202 "care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of a members rights of debate."

indeed The right to debate (with reasonable limits on time and frequency) is absolute; basic; fundamental. 

 

I have studied Previous Questions" history in Great Britain, Canada, and USA. Nowhere does it state that it can stop anyone wishing to speak from speaking. It brings the question to a vote and imposes time limits but does NOT prevent any elected official from speaking. Roberts, way back in older editions went astray on this interpretation and other editions have followed. 2/3rds cannot take away an individuals right to speak; limit yes, take away NO.

 

PERHAPS A DIFFERENT THREAD ON PREVIOUS QUESTION WOULD BE INFORMATIVE. Will you start it or shall I, Regards, Paul 

[Josh Martin]

I have studied Previous Questions" history in Great Britain, Canada, and USA. Nowhere does it state that it can stop anyone wishing to speak from speaking. It brings the question to a vote and imposes time limits but does NOT prevent any elected official from speaking. Roberts, way back in older editions went astray on this interpretation and other editions have followed. 2/3rds cannot take away an individuals right to speak; limit yes, take away NO.

 

This is incorrect. The effect of the "modern" (and I use this term loosely, since the rules on this subject have been in effect for over 200 years) motion for the Previous Question is to bring a motion to an immediate vote, and if adopted, no one can speak to the question. There is nothing which suggests that it cannot be adopted until every member has had an opportunity to speak on the question it is applied to.

 

It is incorrect to suggest that this usage was introduced by early editions of Robert's, as this usage predates Robert's Rules of Order. See, for instance, Chapter VI of Cushing's Manual. This usage was also found in the early US House of Representatives, which is alluded to in Jefferson's Manual. General Robert did make a change regarding the Previous Question - he made it more difficult to adopt, by requiring a 2/3 vote, rather than a majority vote (as was the rule in Cushing's and the US House of Representatives).

 

At least you seem to have at last accepted that the rules in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order on this subject say what they say.

 

PERHAPS A DIFFERENT THREAD ON PREVIOUS QUESTION WOULD BE INFORMATIVE. Will you start it or shall I, Regards, Paul 

 

You are welcome to start another thread on this subject if you wish to do so.

[Shmuel Gerber]

add: p.202 "care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of a members rights of debate."

indeed The right to debate (with reasonable limits on time and frequency) is absolute; basic; fundamental.

 

OK, let's add p. 202, just a few lines later (lines 18-24): "But regardless of the wording of a motion or "call" seeking to close debate, it always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motion(s) to which it is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate (see pp. 44, 387–90)."

 

Once again, the book is explicit in stating that by a two-thirds vote, the assembly can shut off debate against the will of members who wish to speak and have not exhausted their right to debate.

[Guest paul]

This is incorrect. The effect of the "modern" (and I use this term loosely, since the rules on this subject have been in effect for over 200 years) motion for the Previous Question is to bring a motion to an immediate vote, and if adopted, no one can speak to the question. There is nothing which suggests that it cannot be adopted until every member has had an opportunity to speak on the question it is applied to.

 

It is incorrect to suggest that this usage was introduced by early editions of Robert's, as this usage predates Robert's Rules of Order. See, for instance, Chapter VI of Cushing's Manual. This usage was also found in the early US House of Representatives, which is alluded to in Jefferson's Manual. General Robert did make a change regarding the Previous Question - he made it more difficult to adopt, by requiring a 2/3 vote, rather than a majority vote (as was the rule in Cushing's and the US House of Representatives).

 

At least you seem to have at last accepted that the rules in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order on this subject say what they say.

 

 

You are welcome to start another thread on this subject if you wish to do so.

You are correct about Manuals. Most of them seem to agree that 2/3 can remove the right to speak. I was speaking of the background of Previous Question as used by Parliaments. It brings the question to a vote but not at the risk of stopping a member who wishes to speak and has not spoken yet from speaking even though it may be for less time and frequency. Canada's Bourinot's Rules of Order has examples.

And of course, Roberts has a disclaimer that legal trumps their rules. That is why we added the line in our By-Laws protecting the right, even though Roberts is used for everything else. Thanks, Paul