Guest Sheri Posted October 23, 2018 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 at 02:57 PM Our group will have a presenter who will be informing us on a given topic. The goal is informational, and it will be voted on but not at this point. How does the presenter get feedback and allow discussion? What is the motion that should be brought before the group? This is sure to be a contentious topic so I will remind all that no one speaks twice until everyone has had the chance to speak once. Any other pearls of wisdom to help me out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted October 23, 2018 at 03:18 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 at 03:18 PM Well, if it's a contentious topic, it's not clear to me why you want to allow open discussion. But since you want to, let's start with the size of the group. Is it operating under small board rules? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted October 23, 2018 at 03:34 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 at 03:34 PM I think the best way to do this is have the presentation outside of a business meeting atmosphere. You can do it at the same time and place as a business meeting, but have your meeting before introducing the presenter. There's no need to deal with the rules of debate if the topic being presented and discussed is not going to be an item of business at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted October 23, 2018 at 07:01 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 at 07:01 PM According to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR), in boards of "not more than about a dozen members present," one of the relaxations of the rules is that "informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending." I assume that is why Mr. Katz is inquiring about your group size. If indeed it is a small board, then under the rules the presiding officer can begin calling on those who seek recognition, and if they have questions, recognizing the speaker to answer them. If the group is more than about a dozen members, or is an actual assembly rather than a board, then you need to get out from under that rule.As suggested by Mr. Lages, that could be done by holding the discussion at a different time and/or place than a meeting, such as before or after the meeting. Alternatively, someone could move to take a recess for a certain number of minutes, during which time the presenter will be available to answer questions (or however you want to proceed). RONR on pg. 541 has a section entitled "Aids to the Crystallization of Opinion that discusses this to some extent - as well as a common practice of holding discussions in "breakout groups," that you might consult for ideas. Another way to get "out from under" a rule that is interfering with what an assembly wants to do is the motion to "suspend the rules." So, for example, with no motion on the floor, a member could move "to suspend the rules and hold an information discussion of the matter just presented with no motion pending for up to ___ minutes." The motion would need to be seconded, and would require a two-thirds vote. If adopted, the presiding officer would lead a discussion as described above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sheri Posted October 23, 2018 at 07:25 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 at 07:25 PM A motion to suspend the rules for a limited number of minutes looks like the perfect way to handle it. Thanks all for your input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 23, 2018 at 08:16 PM Report Share Posted October 23, 2018 at 08:16 PM (edited) Thank you @Greg Goodwiller, PRP! I was wanting to say the same thing about ways of having an informal discussion! It needn't be complicated! Edited October 23, 2018 at 08:31 PM by Richard Brown Tagged Greg Goodwiller Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 24, 2018 at 12:15 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 12:15 AM I would suggest a main motion "that the assembly go into a committee of the whole to consider (the subject)," if you want to have discussion. See p.168, especially the last paragraph. Note that the committee of the whole is not obliged to recommend a motion to the assembly. If it is purely informational, with no discussion, I'd suggest that it might be appropriate to be treated as a report of a special committee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 24, 2018 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 12:23 AM 2 minutes ago, J. J. said: I would suggest a main motion "that the assembly go into a committee of the whole to consider (the subject)," if you want to have discussion. See p.168, especially the last paragraph. Note that the committee of the whole is not obliged to recommend a motion to the assembly. My difficulty with that is one goes into a committee of the whole to discuss a pending motion -- that is exactly what Guest Sheri says she does not want to do. That is what p. 529 says, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM 11 minutes ago, J. J. said: I would suggest a main motion "that the assembly go into a committee of the whole to consider (the subject)," if you want to have discussion. See p.168, especially the last paragraph. Note that the committee of the whole is not obliged to recommend a motion to the assembly. If it is purely informational, with no discussion, I'd suggest that it might be appropriate to be treated as a report of a special committee. 3 minutes ago, jstackpo said: My difficulty with that is one goes into a committee of the whole to discuss a pending motion -- that is exactly what Guest Sheri says she does not want to do. That is what p. 529 says, too. I purposely did not suggest committee of the whole and was glad that Greg Goodwiller didn't either simply because it is too complicated for the average layman, lay presiding officer and organization member to fully understand. For groups that know what they are doing, fine. But for most groups that I'm familiar with, no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:09 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:09 AM (edited) 48 minutes ago, jstackpo said: My difficulty with that is one goes into a committee of the whole to discuss a pending motion -- that is exactly what Guest Sheri says she does not want to do. That is what p. 529 says, too. Ah, no. "When a motion proposes to assign a task or refer a matter to a committee when no question is pending, ... (p. 168, ll. 29-33, emphasis added)." You might want to check out this thread: Edited October 24, 2018 at 01:13 AM by J. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:14 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:14 AM 3 minutes ago, J. J. said: Ah, no. "When a motion proposes to assign a task or refer a matter to a committee when no question is pending, ... (p. 168, ll. 29-33, emphasis added)." See what I mean? Even we "experts" at parliamentary procedure and Robert's Rules don't know when to use it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:19 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:19 AM I find that Infernal Consideration is usually preferable to a Committee of the Hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:29 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:29 AM 11 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: See what I mean? Even we "experts" at parliamentary procedure and Robert's Rules don't know when to use it!!! Since the motion is a main motion, it is fully debatable. The mover may explain how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:35 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:35 AM (edited) 16 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: I find that Infernal Consideration is usually preferable to a Committee of the Hole. Okaaayyy... did you mean to say "Informal consideration" or are you making a joke? If you're making a joke, I am not taking issue with your statement. But, if you meant to suggest "informal consideration", I have an issue. Informal consideration is used to consider a pending motion. All it does is remove the limit on the number of times a member may speak. But, Guest Sheri wants this issue to be simply discussed without a motion having been made pertaining to the issue to be discussed. What she wants is "informal DISCUSSION" of a matter which is not before the assembly. Nothing in RONR indicates that "Informal Consideration" can be used for that purpose. Edited October 24, 2018 at 01:36 AM by Richard Brown Added smiley face Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:38 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:38 AM 8 minutes ago, J. J. said: Since the motion is a main motion, it is fully debatable. The mover may explain how it works. If he or she knows how it works. I wouldn't bank on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:48 AM Report Share Posted October 24, 2018 at 01:48 AM Just now, Richard Brown said: If he or she knows how it works. I wouldn't bank on it! There is a fairly detail description online (pp. 19-22): https://issuu.com/parliamentarians/docs/nap_np_78-4-www It even had a real world example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts