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

[SaintCad]

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 

 

I'm still not sure how "added for 5 and 3 minutes" does that.  Why not add a special rule of order to your bylaws like:

As long as a member present has not debated on a pending debatable motion, the motion Previous Question must be passed by unanimous consent.

[Josh Martin]

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.

The Previous Question as originally used in the English Parliament was used to dispose of a motion of a sensitive nature, and it was debatable. Over time, it changed to the motion we know now (at least in the United States). If you are interested, Cushing's Manual has a detailed discussion of the history and evolution of this motion.

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.

No one has ever disagreed with the idea that your assembly has the right to adopt special rules of order superseding the rules in RONR. The problem came from the suggestion that RONR itself was somehow ambiguous in its treatment of this subject.

I'm still not sure how "added for 5 and 3 minutes" does that. Why not add a special rule of order to your bylaws like:

As long as a member present has not debated on a pending debatable motion, the motion Previous Question must be passed by unanimous consent.

Based on the previous thread which this thread branched off of, my understanding is that the society adopted a rule providing (essentially) that the Previous Question could not be adopted so long as any member who had not yet spoken wished to speak on the pending question. It seems the society also adopted rules limiting the length of time members wished to speak in debate, perhaps in recognition of the fact that the other rule might prolong debate.

[SaintCad]

Just to add, I found this article and it seems the Previous Question (as a parliamentary concept) was first used in 1604 because of

Much Labour to keep the Bill from the Question at that Time; and agreed, at last, that a Question should be made, Whether the Bill shall presently be put to Question: And, upon Question, Resolved in the Affirmative.

 

So it seems it started more like the cloture rule in the US Senate than the motion we know of today wherein it was used to prevent delaying tactics but reading the article it seems that historically and in the British House of Commons it is more similar to Objection to Consideration of a Question.

[Gary Novosielski]

Based on the previous thread which this thread branched off of, my understanding is that the society adopted a rule providing (essentially) that the Previous Question could not be adopted so long as any member who had not yet spoken wished to speak on the pending question.

 

How would that differ from eliminating the PQ motion entirely?

[SaintCad]

How would that differ from eliminating the PQ motion entirely?

Since every member gets to speak twice, Previous Question could be called after everyone who wants to has spoken at least once even if others wish to speak a second time.

[Guest paul]

PQ, as written, could interfere with right to speak, providing there is a 2/3 vote. Ensuring the right to speak in by-laws eliminates PQs ability to stifle some members (up to 1/3) from speaking. Maybe then, after each person has exhausted their right, it is appropriate to "call for the vote" ie PQ. 

In my opinion, PQ does not belong in a manual dedicated to the value of DELIBERATION. There are remedies for filibuster (setting limits such as 2 times for 10 minutes).

Also, as a famous man once stated: "Differences arise from difference of perception, imperfection of reason, which can be clarified by FULL and FREE DISCUSSION.  

I thank RONR discussion board. This has helped my understanding of RONR 11 a great deal, Paul

[Josh Martin]

PQ, as written, could interfere with right to speak, providing there is a 2/3 vote. Ensuring the right to speak in by-laws eliminates PQs ability to stifle some members (up to 1/3) from speaking. Maybe then, after each person has exhausted their right, it is appropriate to "call for the vote" ie PQ. 

In my opinion, PQ does not belong in a manual dedicated to the value of DELIBERATION. There are remedies for filibuster (setting limits such as 2 times for 10 minutes).

Also, as a famous man once stated: "Differences arise from difference of perception, imperfection of reason, which can be clarified by FULL and FREE DISCUSSION.  

I thank RONR discussion board. This has helped my understanding of RONR 11 a great deal, Paul

RONR is designed for all sorts of assemblies, ranging from committees with a handful of members to conventions with hundreds or even thousands of members. The Previous Question is an extremely useful tool in many assemblies, particularly those which are large or where the members like to talk a lot (or both). If your society can get along fine without it, that's all well and good for you, but I'm glad it's there for assemblies which need it.

[Guest paul]

RONR is designed for all sorts of assemblies, ranging from committees with a handful of members to conventions with hundreds or even thousands of members. The Previous Question is an extremely useful tool in many assemblies, particularly those which are large or where the members like to talk a lot (or both). If your society can get along fine without it, that's all well and good for you, but I'm glad it's there for assemblies which need it.

Yes. For assemblies who need it. But they must also consider laws or statutes, or do they? We are a legislative body and use Roberts as our procedures manual. But legally, the right to participate, cannot be taken away, certainly not by 2/3 vote. So we add that right to avoid confusion.

It raises the question: Do non-legislative, or "ordinary societies", need to conform to laws and statutes? And, if they do, then all may have to ensure the right to participate. Example is Canada's Charter which states the right to opinion and expression is a fundamental freedom. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

It raises the question: Do non-legislative, or "ordinary societies", need to conform to laws and statutes? And, if they do, then all may have to ensure the right to participate. Example is Canada's Charter which states the right to opinion and expression is a fundamental freedom. 

 

If you want to discuss this, please post it as a new topic. Any further off-topic responses will be deleted from this thread.

[Guest paul]

If you want to discuss this, please post it as a new topic. Any further off-topic responses will be deleted from this thread.

Thanks for your input and advice. I will start a new discussion using what I have learned here. Regards, Paul 

[Gary Novosielski]

In my opinion, PQ does not belong in a manual dedicated to the value of DELIBERATION.

 

And I'm thankful that, in the opinion of the authors, it does belong.