Regarding Speaker Being Interrupted by Members Late Arrival

[Shelley B.]

Our community council had elections yesterday evening.

The nominating committee presented a slate of nominees and requested that the candidates prepare a written bio along with a statement of what they could bring to the community to be presented at an additional meeting.  The future meeting date for the presentation was scheduled and confirmed by vote of those present.  All candidates with the exception of one gave their presentations as requested on the scheduled meeting date.

Yesterday evening, all of the nominees were asked to present again before the election with the stipulation of a 2 minute time limit.  These presentations were given after the meeting had already been in process for at least 30 minutes.  While the second nominee was speaking there was a very noisy and chaotic interruption caused by late arriving attendees.  The speaker paused momentarily as they could not be heard over the noise and there was not a microphone being used.  However, the presiding officer did not toll the clock, would not allow the speaker to finish the presentation and actually gaveled them into silence two sentences before the each of the speech (i.e. the culminating point).

In my opinion, the presiding officer was acting in a rude, improper and unfair manner which shows disrespect towards the speaker.

However, my questions  is  - Does Robert's Rules of Order address this type of situation?

 

 

 

 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Shelley B. said:

 . . . .While the second nominee was speaking there was a very noisy and chaotic interruption caused by late arriving attendees.  The speaker paused momentarily as they could not be heard over the noise and there was not a microphone being used.  However, the presiding officer did not toll the clock, would not allow the speaker to finish the presentation and actually gaveled them into silence two sentences before the each of the speech (i.e. the culminating point).

In my opinion, the presiding officer was acting in a rude, improper and unfair manner which shows disrespect towards the speaker.

However, my questions  is  - Does Robert's Rules of Order address this type of situation?

RONR itseld does not directly address this situation.  However, it is my opinion that if the interruption was such that the speaker could not have been heard or the interruption was of such a nature that the other members would have a hard time following the speech during the interruption, the clock should have been stopped and the speaker should not have that time charged against him.

Although RONR itself does not address that issue (if it does, I could not find it), the authorship team does address it in supplementary material available on the CD-ROM version of RONR.  That version  contains quite a bit of additional information such as suggestions for electronic meetings, guidelines for timekeepers, etc.  In the suggestions/instruction for timekeepers, the supplementary information makes plain that most involuntary interruptions of a speaker should result in the clock being stopped and the time not counted against the speaker's allotted time. In a chart (or table) of which interruptions do and don't count against the speaker's time, the chart is clear that "other interruptions of the speaker" do not count against his time.  In other words, the clock should be stopped.  I think this falls into that category.

What the speaker or some other member should have done, when the chair refused to extend his time, was to raise a point of order that the pause caused by the interruption should not be counted against the speaker's time and that his time should be extended due to the interruption.  If the chair ruled the point of order not well taken, any two members (a mover and a seconder) could have appealed the ruling of the chair to the assembly.  It would require a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I believe Raising a Question of Privilege affecting the assembly would be most apt in this situation. Any member could have done it, including the speaker if (s)he is a member, as soon as the commotion began.

[Richard Brown]

12 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

I believe Raising a Question of Privilege affecting the assembly would be most apt in this situation. Any member could have done it, including the speaker if (s)he is a member, as soon as the commotion began.

I agree that such a question of privilege could have been raised at the time of the interruption, but there should have been no need for it. The speaker voluntarily stopped speaking during the interruption, as was appropriate, and then resumed speaking when the interruption was over.  The chair should have simply extended the speakers time without the need for a motion or point of order.  It was only after the chair cut the speaker off due to having "exhausted" his time that the need for a point of order or motion of any kind became obvious.  At that point, since the chair was cutting off the speaker, I believe a point of order was the proper and maybe the only option available other than, perhaps, a motion to extend the speaker's time.  Such a motion should have been granted by unanimous consent and really shouldn't have even been necessary.

[Mare]

At our General Membership meeting, the doors are locked at the start of the meeting and no one is allowed in afterward. Just an FYI.

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, Mare said:

At our General Membership meeting, the doors are locked at the start of the meeting and no one is allowed in afterward. Just an FYI.

Mare, are you referring to the same organization as Shelley B?   If not, whenever you make such a statement, please always make plain that you are referring to a different organization.  We have no way of knowing if this is the rule in Shelley's organization or not.  What the rule or procedure might be in a different organization isn't pertinent to the question at hand except, perhaps, as to a suggestion for a new rule.  But, if that's the purpose of your comment, it should be made plain.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Mare said:

At our General Membership meeting, the doors are locked at the start of the meeting and no one is allowed in afterward. Just an FYI.

I think there is some question as to whether such a procedure is proper, unless it is in the bylaws, since it has the effect of denying any members who arrive late the right to attend, and all other rights contingent upon attendance, such as to speak in debate or to vote.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree that such a question of privilege could have been raised at the time of the interruption, but there should have been no need for it. The speaker voluntarily stopped speaking during the interruption, as was appropriate, and then resumed speaking when the interruption was over.  The chair should have simply extended the speakers time without the need for a motion or point of order.  It was only after the chair cut the speaker off due to having "exhausted" his time that the need for a point of order or motion of any kind became obvious.  At that point, since the chair was cutting off the speaker, I believe a point of order was the proper and maybe the only option available other than, perhaps, a motion to extend the speaker's time.  Such a motion should have been granted by unanimous consent and really shouldn't have even been necessary.

I think Mr. Dinner’s point is that the interruption (multiple members speaking without recognition, with sufficient volume to disrupt the assembly) was not proper, and it was not necessary for the speaker to wait for them to quiet down. The chair, or any member, can and should have called the disruptive members to order, in my opinion, although I suppose a question of privilege would also be appropriate. Certainly, if this had been done, the time used for these motions should not have counted against the speaker’s time. 

I concur, however, that since this was not done, extending the speaker’s time for an amount of time equal to the interruption would have been the proper course of action. I agree that the chair should have simply done so on his own initiative and, failing that, a member could have moved to extend the time or raised a Point of Order.

Edited November 14, 2018 at 11:38 PM by Josh Martin

[Mare]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Mare, are you referring to the same organization as Shelley B?   If not, whenever you make such a statement, please always make plain that you are referring to a different organization.  We have no way of knowing if this is the rule in Shelley's organization or not.  What the rule or procedure might be in a different organization isn't pertinent to the question at hand except, perhaps, as to a suggestion for a new rule.  But, if that's the purpose of your comment, it should be made plain.

Sorry.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/14/2018 at 1:12 PM, Shelley B. said:

Our community council had elections yesterday evening.

The nominating committee presented a slate of nominees and requested that the candidates prepare a written bio along with a statement of what they could bring to the community to be presented at an additional meeting.  The future meeting date for the presentation was scheduled and confirmed by vote of those present.  All candidates with the exception of one gave their presentations as requested on the scheduled meeting date.

Yesterday evening, all of the nominees were asked to present again before the election with the stipulation of a 2 minute time limit.  These presentations were given after the meeting had already been in process for at least 30 minutes.  While the second nominee was speaking there was a very noisy and chaotic interruption caused by late arriving attendees.  The speaker paused momentarily as they could not be heard over the noise and there was not a microphone being used.  However, the presiding officer did not toll the clock, would not allow the speaker to finish the presentation and actually gaveled them into silence two sentences before the each of the speech (i.e. the culminating point).

In my opinion, the presiding officer was acting in a rude, improper and unfair manner which shows disrespect towards the speaker.

However, my questions  is  - Does Robert's Rules of Order address this type of situation?

Yes, it provides that any member could have moved to afford extra time to the speaker, but apparently everyone just sat there and said nothing.  The book cannot jump up off the table and enforce itself.