Guest Larry Posted November 8, 2017 at 10:55 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 10:55 PM While I was presiding over a meeting, I asked if there was any further discussion and asked if the assembly was ready for the question. I paused. After hearing no responses, I put the question to a vote. Right after doing that, a member interrupted the proceedings "to make sure everyone knew what was being voted on." Was that member out of order? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:18 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:18 PM No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:18 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:18 PM 21 minutes ago, Guest Larry said: While I was presiding over a meeting, I asked if there was any further discussion and asked if the assembly was ready for the question. I paused. After hearing no responses, I put the question to a vote. Right after doing that, a member interrupted the proceedings "to make sure everyone knew what was being voted on." Was that member out of order? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:19 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:19 PM (edited) 2 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: No. Why not? As I understand the facts, a member spoke, without recognition, after the chair had put the question, possibly even interrupting the actual taking of the vote (although this is unclear). What about this is proper? Edited November 8, 2017 at 11:21 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:22 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:22 PM Perhaps more details on the situation may be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LLT Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:32 PM Report Share Posted November 8, 2017 at 11:32 PM Yes - but perhaps only in the way the interruption was made . A member make make a Request for Information relevant to the business at hand and that can interrupt ( RONR 294 ,LL 19-30) - but before a member can go further than stating " Mr./Madame Chair I have a request for Information" - he/she must stop speaking and be acknowledged by the Chair . In connection with members being sure of what is being voted on RONR has considerable content to the effect that this is indeed a high priority matter . However , no member has a right to barge in without permission- even with that information . There is a correct approach and that should be followed . From your account that was not followed and therefore out of order . After receiving permission to speak further to the request- the Chair might well have repeated the exact words of the motion, just in case - but that is for the Chair to consider and do -and no other . LLT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 9, 2017 at 02:58 AM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 02:58 AM Agreeing with all of the above, I don't think I know enough to determine the answer. Was the person making a statement or asking a question? Was it relevant to the vote, method of voting, or underlying content? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 9, 2017 at 04:44 AM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 04:44 AM 1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said: Agreeing with all of the above, I don't think I know enough to determine the answer. Was the person making a statement or asking a question? Was it relevant to the vote, method of voting, or underlying content? I agree. It seems to me the member might have been making, in essence, a parliamentary inquiry to make sure he and the assembly knew just what they were voting on. I've seen this happen quite a few times, usually with a less-skilled presiding officer. A more experienced presiding officer would try to make sure that everyone knows what they are voting on when he puts the question. Perhaps the form or manner of making the inquiry was not textbook perfect, but in the real world of parliamentary procedure, things are seldom perfect. I don't really see anything wrong with the interruption, but, without more information, especially as to exactly what the member said, I can't say whether it was "out of order". And, even if it was, was it a breach of such a serious nature that the member should have been called to order on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Posted November 9, 2017 at 06:33 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 06:33 PM Josh, for clarification. I had already put the question and started to take the vote. I was interrupted as I said, "As many are in favor..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Posted November 9, 2017 at 06:40 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 06:40 PM I served as the moderator (chair) of the meeting. I put the question as it was written by the ad hoc committee. Since it was a called meeting, I instructed the secretary to distribute copies of the motion to each member two weeks prior to the meeting. We also distributed a copy of the motion at the meeting and had the motion displayed on the projector screen to ensure everyone knew the motion. I hope this information adds clarity to the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:23 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:23 PM Guest Larry, it might help if you tell us exactly what the interrupting member said, as well as what you said in response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:41 PM Richard- Of course. The general script of the interaction was as follows: Moderator: (After it seemed no other members desired to speak) Is there any further discussion? (Pause...) Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the adoption of the motion that the assembly lease ___ land to ___ company for $___ per month for ___ years. (Pause...) As many as are in favor... Member: (interrupting) So are we voting on leasing ___ land to ___ company? Moderator: Correct, we're voting on whether the assembly should lease ___ land to ___ company for $___ per month for ___ years. Member: I don't think everyone understands. So we're voting on entering into contract to let ____ company rent ____ land. Moderator: Correct. Member: So if you're against the proposal, you should vote no? Moderator: Correct. If you are for the proposal, you should vote yes. Member: Ok. Moderator: Is there any further discussion? (Pause...) Hearing no further discussion, the question is on the adoption of the motion that the assembly lease ___ land to ___ company for $___ per month for ___ years. (Pause...) As many as are in favor, say "aye." (Pause) As many as are opposed, say "no." I hope this helps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:45 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:45 PM 3 minutes ago, Guest Larry said: Member: I don't think everyone understands. So we're voting on entering into contract to let ____ company rent ____ land. Moderator: Correct. Member: So if you're against the proposal, you should vote no? Moderator: Correct. If you are for the proposal, you should vote yes. Member: Ok. Although perhaps inexpertly phrased, I think this is a valid question during voting. It should be made as a point of information, which is in order if it relates to voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:51 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 07:51 PM I think it's of some significance to note that the interruption occurred before any member had actually voted (RONR, p. 408, ll. 9-14). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 9, 2017 at 08:08 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 08:08 PM One way to back the person up a step and clarify whether he is raising a Request for Information, or other potentially valid point: Instead of responding "Correct", which implicitly recognizes the member, you could have ignored the content of his initial interruption, and responded "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?" That allows the chair to keep better control of the situation by halting any dialog until he can rule on whether the interruption is in order in the first place. I have found it to be a useful tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 9, 2017 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 08:12 PM (edited) I agree with Joshua Katz (and apparently with Mr. Honemann, although I'm not entirely positive). The member's question wasn't textbook perfect, but I think it was a permissible question. Regardless, even if it was improper, I think it is such a minor breach as to not be worthy of making an issue out of it. Perhaps this excerpt from "Suggestions for Inexperienced presiding officers" on page 456 will be somewhat enlightening (I have bolded the last sentence): "While a commanding presence and knowledge are essential in procedural matters, the president of an ordinary deliberative assembly, especially a large one, should, of all the members, have the least to say upon the substance of pending questions. While providing strong leadership, he should be fair. He should never get excited; he should never be unjust to even the most troublesome member, or take advantage of such member's lack of knowledge of parliamentary law, even though a temporary good might be accomplished thereby. The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business." Edited to add: Although you might think you were crystal clear on what was being voted on, it might not have been as clear as you thought or perhaps this member just didn't understand or had not read the information you sent out. Edited November 9, 2017 at 08:18 PM by Richard Brown Added last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Larry Posted November 9, 2017 at 10:44 PM Report Share Posted November 9, 2017 at 10:44 PM Thank you all for your input. I thought the member was in order as long she didn't interrupt between me taking the affirmative vote and the negative vote. I'm not a trained parliamentarian or presiding officer. I'm a pastor of a church, which is the moderator according to our congregation's bylaws. Our parliamentary procedures is A Parliamentary Guide for Church Leaders by C. Barry McCarty, the chief parliamentarian for the Southern Baptist Convention. We found his book to be a bit simpler for use in our context. Having said all of that, I appreciate you all's time and advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 10, 2017 at 02:56 AM Report Share Posted November 10, 2017 at 02:56 AM 3 hours ago, Guest Larry said: ... We found his book to be a bit simpler for use in our context... Perhaps the In Brief book may be of use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts