BabbsJohnson Posted July 9, 2015 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 at 07:11 PM If the board has made no special rules of order to limit the speaking time during discussion/debate, can anyone rightly say something to the effect of 'ok, we've heard enough' or 'I think it's time to wrap it up' or something like that, without calling a point of order and claiming that the discussion is not germane? In other words does anyone have the authority to say that ime is up before a speaker's actual 10 minutes is up if the comments and what Is being talked about is still on topic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 9, 2015 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2015 at 07:51 PM If the board has made no special rules of order to limit the speaking time during discussion/debate, can anyone rightly say something to the effect of 'ok, we've heard enough' or 'I think it's time to wrap it up' or something like that, without calling a point of order and claiming that the discussion is not germane? In other words does anyone have the authority to say that ime is up before a speaker's actual 10 minutes is up if the comments and what Is being talked about is still on topic? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted July 11, 2015 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2015 at 04:41 PM At the end of the last person's speech, when you've had enough, you should move to "call the previous question." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptc122 Posted July 21, 2015 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 at 03:45 PM At the end of the last person's speech, when you've had enough, you should move to "call the previous question." Last? as in the present person speaking is finished? Cannot INTERRUPT a speaker. Also requires a 2/3 vote because you are cutting of debate and up to 1/3 of the persons who wish to speak have not spoken. Keep in mind that Roberts must conform to Law, the constitution of your organization and your by-laws. Previous Question may not conform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 21, 2015 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 at 03:49 PM Keep in mind that Roberts must conform to Law, the constitution of your organization and your by-laws. No, Roberts Rules doesn't have to conform to "Law" or a constitution or bylaws and, in many instances, it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 21, 2015 at 03:52 PM Report Share Posted July 21, 2015 at 03:52 PM Last? as in the present person speaking is finished? Cannot INTERRUPT a speaker. Also requires a 2/3 vote because you are cutting of debate and up to 1/3 of the persons who wish to speak have not spoken. Keep in mind that Roberts must conform to Law, the constitution of your organization and your by-laws. Previous Question may not conform. Dr. Ron didn't say to interrupt anyone. He meant when you're tired of speeches, obtain the floor properly and move for the previous question. This can be done after the first speech or after many. And how does anyone know how many people wish to speak before they move for the previous question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptc122 Posted July 22, 2015 at 03:31 PM Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 at 03:31 PM No, Roberts Rules doesn't have to conform to "Law" or a constitution or bylaws and, in many instances, it doesn't.When Roberts is mentioned in your by-laws it must be kept in mind that your by-laws must conform to law. If you are using Roberts and it states that Previous Question may keep 1/3 from participating in debate and your laws or constitution state that everyone has the right to participate then this would trump Roberts. But you are right Roberts does not have to conform. It only needs to state that laws do take precedent. P 3 and 4, 10. I should have been clearer and will continue to learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptc122 Posted July 22, 2015 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 at 03:50 PM Dr. Ron didn't say to interrupt anyone. He meant when you're tired of speeches, obtain the floor properly and move for the previous question. This can be done after the first speech or after many. And how does anyone know how many people wish to speak before they move for the previous question?And how does anyone know? The by-laws state that each voting member has the right to speak twice for up to five minutes...or wording to this effect.We use Roberts but state in our by-laws the right to speak and the limits, for the purpose of equity and to off-set the use of Previous Question before everyone who wishes to speak has spoken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 22, 2015 at 04:06 PM Report Share Posted July 22, 2015 at 04:06 PM And how does anyone know? The by-laws state that each voting member has the right to speak twice for up to five minutes...or wording to this effect.We use Roberts but state in our by-laws the right to speak and the limits, for the purpose of equity and to off-set the use of Previous Question before everyone who wishes to speak has spoken. Paul, I think that the length and number of speeches, regardless of where the rule is at is a rule of order and a suspendable one at that. It's interesting to me that the rule in your hypothetical bylaws is more restrictive than the length of speeches in RONR, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 23, 2015 at 12:08 AM Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 at 12:08 AM And how does anyone know? The by-laws state that each voting member has the right to speak twice for up to five minutes...or wording to this effect.We use Roberts but state in our by-laws the right to speak and the limits, for the purpose of equity and to off-set the use of Previous Question before everyone who wishes to speak has spoken. If it is your society's intent that the Previous Question may not be ordered so long as any member who has not yet spoken in debate objects, this should be clearly stated. I don't think wording to the effect of "each voting member has the right to speak twice for up to five minutes" makes it at all clear that the rule is intended "to off-set the use of Previous Question before everyone who wishes to speak has spoken." If you had not mentioned this, I would have assumed the purpose of the rule was simply to limit speeches to five minutes instead of ten, and not that it had anything to do with the Previous Question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptc122 Posted July 23, 2015 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 at 01:09 PM Paul, I think that the length and number of speeches, regardless of where the rule is at is a rule of order and a suspendable one at that. It's interesting to me that the rule in your hypothetical bylaws is more restrictive than the length of speeches in RONR, by the way. They are not hypothetical. They are our Procedural by-laws and we structured them to ensure each voting member, who wishes to speak, gets the chance. We chose and voted for the limits and understand that they can be changed or suspended. The right to speak cannot be suspended by a 2/3 or any vote because we are legislated by an Act and, in Canada, all Acts must conform to Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifies the right to opinion and expression. Even if there was no Acts to conform to, we would have adjusted our by-laws to ensure equity in deliberation even though we state Roberts asour method of procedures, the vote can not be called for by using Previous Question until each member who wants to speak has spoken. Saves a lot of potential stress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 23, 2015 at 01:38 PM Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 at 01:38 PM They are not hypothetical. They are our Procedural by-laws and we structured them to ensure each voting member, who wishes to speak, gets the chance. We chose and voted for the limits and understand that they can be changed or suspended. The right to speak cannot be suspended by a 2/3 or any vote because we are legislated by an Act and, in Canada, all Acts must conform to Charter of Rights and Freedoms which specifies the right to opinion and expression. Even if there was no Acts to conform to, we would have adjusted our by-laws to ensure equity in deliberation even though we state Roberts asour method of procedures, the vote can not be called for by using Previous Question until each member who wants to speak has spoken. Saves a lot of potential stress. Ok so some applicable procedural rule in statute prohibits the use of the previous question in your society's case. Fine by us. But suggesting that the Previous Question cannot be used when there is no applicable rule in statute prohibiting its use is not correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted July 23, 2015 at 01:52 PM Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 at 01:52 PM Ok so some applicable procedural rule in statute prohibits the use of the previous question in your society's case. Fine by us. But suggesting that the Previous Question cannot be used when there is no applicable rule in statute prohibiting its use is not correct.I agree completely with this statement by Mr. Mervosh. I was trying to come up with a response similar to the one Mr. Mervosh made above, but had not yet had enough coffee to come up with something reasonably coherent and to say it in less than a couple of hundred words. He said it perfectly. I also agree with his comments in post # 9 and with Mr. Martin's comments in post # 10. If the society wants the right for each member to speak twice on each question to be absolute and not capable of being suspended or subject to a motion for the previous question, the bylaws should clearly say so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 23, 2015 at 06:16 PM Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 at 06:16 PM I'm also in agreement that the language quoted does not clearly suggest that the use of the Previous Question would be in any way affected, except that the OP has told us that's the way it's been interpreted in that particular organization. If that's the intent, I think the language falls somewhat short of effectively implementing it in a way that future assemblies would be obliged to respect. As a presumably suspendible rule of order, such protection as it affords would only apply to a minority as large as one-third, which is no more protective than the Previous Question itself. It seems to be a distinction without a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 23, 2015 at 07:30 PM Report Share Posted July 23, 2015 at 07:30 PM . . .the OP has told us that's the way it's been interpreted in that particular organization. Might you be mistaking ptc122 for the OP, Nosey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 24, 2015 at 05:05 AM Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 at 05:05 AM I very well might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptc122 Posted July 24, 2015 at 10:44 PM Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 at 10:44 PM Ok so some applicable procedural rule in statute prohibits the use of the previous question in your society's case. Fine by us. But suggesting that the Previous Question cannot be used when there is no applicable rule in statute prohibiting its use is not correct.Not suggesting that Previous cannot be used. The wording in our by-laws is to clarify that each member has the right to speak (with limitations on frequency and time). Previous Question can be called as long as each member who wishes to speak has spoken. We do not want 2/3 vote to stop 1/3 from participating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptc122 Posted July 24, 2015 at 10:54 PM Report Share Posted July 24, 2015 at 10:54 PM I agree completely with this statement by Mr. Mervosh. I was trying to come up with a response similar to the one Mr. Mervosh made above, but had not yet had enough coffee to come up with something reasonably coherent and to say it in less than a couple of hundred words. He said it perfectly. I also agree with his comments in post # 9 and with Mr. Martin's comments in post # 10. If the society wants the right for each member to speak twice on each question to be absolute and not capable of being suspended or subject to a motion for the previous question, the bylaws should clearly say so. Exactly. I agree and that is what we did with our by-laws. We use Roberts with the exception of right to speak is enshrined so that Previous Question not be used until every member who wishes to speak has spoken. Our by-laws are now clear and legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.