Chip Posted February 20, 2018 at 12:50 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 12:50 PM I know that the "Point of Information" is now a "Request for Information" so that people do not simply use the motion to dump information into a debate (which I think is a good thing). I know that this motion has been misused in some assemblies I've been a part of in the past. My question is about what a member should do if they think they have valuable information to contribute that may assist others in considering the current motion, but they have personally not taken a position for or against the current motion. A long-time member may have historical information that other members may not be aware of, and may want to share this. My understanding regarding debate is that normally, a member is supposed to speak for or against a motion, and not simply provide historical context that the members may find helpful. Is it acceptable for a member to just "dump historical information" during debate without taking a position on the motion? It would seem to me that it would be out of order. If that is, in fact, out of order, is there another way that a member can provide historical context related to a motion in front of the assembly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 20, 2018 at 01:11 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 01:11 PM 7 minutes ago, Chip said: My understanding regarding debate is that normally, a member is supposed to speak for or against a motion, and not simply provide historical context that the members may find helpful. Is it acceptable for a member to just "dump historical information" during debate without taking a position on the motion? It would seem to me that it would be out of order. If the information being provided is germane to the question before the assembly and may be of assistance to members in deciding whether the immediately pending motion should or should not be adopted, the members remarks will not be out of order. (RONR, 11th ed., p. 392, ll. 6-9) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 20, 2018 at 02:09 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 02:09 PM I agree that this would be in order. I would note that another member may make a Request For Information and request that the member with the historic information, relating to the business at hand, to describe it. The request would be directed through the chair. The member may decline to answer the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transpower Posted February 20, 2018 at 02:11 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 02:11 PM Providing information is part of advocating for or against a motion. So the "Point of Information" provided by the member should be counted as 1 of his or her two speeches; of course the assembly may have special rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 20, 2018 at 02:31 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 02:31 PM 8 minutes ago, Transpower said: Providing information is part of advocating for or against a motion. So the "Point of Information" provided by the member should be counted as 1 of his or her two speeches; of course the assembly may have special rules. I'm afraid that referring to information provided by a member while speaking in debate as a "Point of Information" tends to confuse doing so with the sort of "Point of Information" referred to on pages 294-95 of RONR (11th ed.). Merely raising what is referred to in RONR as a "Point of Information" does not count as speaking in debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:29 PM Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:29 PM 3 hours ago, Transpower said: Providing information is part of advocating for or against a motion. So the "Point of Information" provided by the member should be counted as 1 of his or her two speeches; of course the assembly may have special rules. 2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: I'm afraid that referring to information provided by a member while speaking in debate as a "Point of Information" tends to confuse doing so with the sort of "Point of Information" referred to on pages 294-95 of RONR (11th ed.). Merely raising what is referred to in RONR as a "Point of Information" does not count as speaking in debate. I'm definitely not looking to have people using "Point of Information" to interject stuff when they are not next in line to have the floor - that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. One of my concerns though, is that I know that normally in debate, people on opposing sides alternate - one person speaks for a motion, the next person speaks against the motion, the next person speaks for the motion, etc. If someone really doesn't want to speak either for or against it but instead wants to simply provide relevant information, does it make sense for the chair to simply treat that person as being "neutral" during the debate? Would it be appropriate, for example, for a person to say "Mr. Chair, Rob Roberts, Delegate from Somewhere; I rise to speak to provide information on this motion" (instead of "I rise to speak in favor of / in opposition to this motion")? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:49 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:49 PM 13 minutes ago, Chip said: I'm definitely not looking to have people using "Point of Information" to interject stuff when they are not next in line to have the floor - that's exactly what I'm trying to avoid. One of my concerns though, is that I know that normally in debate, people on opposing sides alternate - one person speaks for a motion, the next person speaks against the motion, the next person speaks for the motion, etc. If someone really doesn't want to speak either for or against it but instead wants to simply provide relevant information, does it make sense for the chair to simply treat that person as being "neutral" during the debate? Would it be appropriate, for example, for a person to say "Mr. Chair, Rob Roberts, Delegate from Somewhere; I rise to speak to provide information on this motion" (instead of "I rise to speak in favor of / in opposition to this motion")? I don't see why not. You don't need to wait until debate is over. Also, what if you wanted to make a secondary motion? "While debate is in progress, amendments or other secondary (subsidiary, privileged, or incidental) motions can be introduced and disposed of—and can be debated in the process, if they are debatable—as explained on pages 116–18" RONR (11th ed.), p. 386. Therefore, just because the chair is going back and forth in the debate, it doesn't prohibit members from doing other things which are procedurally proper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:50 PM Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:50 PM 20 minutes ago, Chip said: Would it be appropriate, for example, for a person to say "Mr. Chair, Rob Roberts, Delegate from Somewhere; I rise to speak to provide information on this motion" (instead of "I rise to speak in favor of / in opposition to this motion")? I generally say, if the chair asks, "speaking neither in favor nor against." As chair, I take such speakers in the order of seeking the floor and just ignore them in the alternation, unless they clearly speak one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:56 PM Author Report Share Posted February 20, 2018 at 05:56 PM Sounds good ... thanks to everyone for their help! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts