Summation

[MadamMember]

Sometimes people are allowed in our meetings to give summations of a motion and sometimes they are not. 

I have not found the word summation in RONR.  It seems that that is allowed in Mason's Rules, but not Roberts. 

It appears to me that the right to summate violates that a person can only speak once to a motion unless no one else wants to speak to it. 

It seems odd to me that someone may think that if they make a motion, they are entitled to the floor to have the last say on their motion.

Would this be correct? My instincts are that this is not permitted.  

Can someone point me to the place where I could find the answer? 

 

Thank you in advance!

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

In RONR, a member may speak twice on a motion, and the maker has the right to speak first, but no particular right to speak last. 

[MadamMember]

Thank you. It appears to me that a summation (speaking first and last) goes against the For/Against evenly split for debate. 

[Josh Martin]

16 minutes ago, MadamMember said:

Sometimes people are allowed in our meetings to give summations of a motion and sometimes they are not. 

I have not found the word summation in RONR.  It seems that that is allowed in Mason's Rules, but not Roberts. 

It appears to me that the right to summate violates that a person can only speak once to a motion unless no one else wants to speak to it. 

It seems odd to me that someone may think that if they make a motion, they are entitled to the floor to have the last say on their motion.

Would this be correct? My instincts are that this is not permitted.  

Can someone point me to the place where I could find the answer? 

I am not familiar with this term in parliamentary law, but it appears that you are saying it means that the motion maker has the right to speak again after all others have spoken, immediately before the vote is taken. It is correct that there is no such right in RONR. The motion maker has a right to speak first, but not last. The only instance in which someone has the right to speak last is in debate on an appeal, in which event the chair speaks first and last.

I would note, however, that it is not correct that “a person can only speak once to a motion unless no one else wants to speak to it.” Members may speak twice to a debatable motion. In the event that others who have not yet spoken wish to speak, they have preference in recognition over those who have already spoken once, but ultimately the member has the right to speak a second time.

I would review RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 379-380, 387-390, for rules concerning preference in recognition and the number and length of speeches.

9 minutes ago, MadamMember said:

Thank you. It appears to me that a summation (speaking first and last) goes against the For/Against evenly split for debate. 

It is also not entirely correct that there must be an even split of speeches for and against. RONR suggests that the chair should alternate between speeches for and against to the extent possible, but it will not always be an even split.

[MadamMember]

5 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I am not familiar with this term in parliamentary law, but it appears that you are saying it means that the motion maker has the right to speak again after all others have spoken, immediately before the vote is taken. It is correct that there is no such right in RONR. The motion maker has a right to speak first, but not last. The only instance in which someone has the right to speak last is in debate on an appeal, in which event the chair speaks first and last.

I would note, however, that it is not correct that “a person can only speak once to a motion unless no one else wants to speak to it.” Members may speak twice to a debatable motion. In the event that others who have not yet spoken wish to speak, they have preference in recognition over those who have already spoken once, but ultimately the member has the right to speak a second time.

I would review RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 379-380, 387-390, for rules concerning preference in recognition and the number and length of speeches.

It is also not entirely correct that there must be an even split of speeches for and against. RONR suggests that the chair should alternate between speeches for and against to the extent possible, but it will not always be an even split.

 

THANK YOU!

 

3

 

[Guest Zev]

Interestingly enough, the debate procedure started out this way, to wit:

Quote

By parliamentary courtesy, the member upon whose motion a subject is brought before the assembly is first entitled to the floor, even though another member has risen first and addressed the Chair; [in case of a report of a committee, it is the member who presents the report]; and this member is also entitled to close the debate, but not until every member choosing to speak, has spoken.

Robert's Rules Of Order, 1st edition, page 67. Perhaps those involved in this question have been basing their conclusions upon older versions of this book and do not realize that things have changed a little bit.

[Gary Novosielski]

I find that text in the Pocket Manual,  §34, pp. 82-83.

[Guest Zev]

23 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I find that text in the Pocket Manual,  §34, pp. 82-83.

I do too, however that page range is in the 2nd edition.

And another curiosity. This particular rule existed unchanged until the 7th edition of 1970. Ninety-four years and then ... boom! ... it just bit the dust.

[Nathan Zook]

I can certainly see why, however.  Opening & closing both gives a strong advantage to the mover.

My county party does this here in Washington state.  The Texas counties I was in did not.  I like don't like doing it.

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

  I like don't like doing it.

Huh?

[Joshua Katz]

8 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I can certainly see why, however.  Opening & closing both gives a strong advantage to the mover.

 

Well, yes. That is probably one reason RONR does not do it. (Note the one instance where there is a right to speak last - the chair's right on a motion to appeal - is one where tilting the scales a bit in the direction of voting yes makes some sense.)

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/14/2019 at 7:39 PM, Guest Zev said:

I do too, however that page range is in the 2nd edition.

 

I can't find any edition listed anywhere.  It does say "Seventh Thousand"  at one point.

[Guest Zev]

The entire list of all the printings and pictures of the covers can be seen on Stran Trout's web site at:

http://www.newkent.net/robert.html

In your particular case you have a 1st printing of the 2nd edition and should consider yourself a lucky man.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

The entire list of all the printings and pictures of the covers can be seen on Stran Trout's web site at:

http://www.newkent.net/robert.html

In your particular case you have a 1st printing of the 2nd edition and should consider yourself a lucky man.

I would, if it belonged to me. ☹️