limit debate on appeal

[Leo]

An organization adopts a special rule of order limiting debate to two minutes per speaker and twice to the same question on the same day.

The adopted rule limiting debate to two minutes per speaker supersedes the general rule that a member an speak no longer than ten minutes.

Does the adopted rule that a member can speak twice to the same question on the same day supersede the specific rule that in the case of an appeal only the presiding officer can speak twice, all other members being limited to one speech.

[Joshua Katz]

I don't think so. It imposes a ceiling, not a floor, based on your description that it limits debate. If it were worded more expansively, though, maybe I'd change my mind.

[George Mervosh]

9 minutes ago, Leo said:

An organization adopts a special rule of order limiting debate to two minutes per speaker and twice to the same question on the same day.

Since you've adopted a rule without the exception for an appeal found on p. 389 I'm inclined to think the special rule of order applies as written, with no exceptions. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Ultimately it is up to the organization to interpret its rules. Perhaps it could be amended to remove the ambiguity.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Leo said:

An organization adopts a special rule of order limiting debate to two minutes per speaker and twice to the same question on the same day.

The adopted rule limiting debate to two minutes per speaker supersedes the general rule that a member an speak no longer than ten minutes.

Does the adopted rule that a member can speak twice to the same question on the same day supersede the specific rule that in the case of an appeal only the presiding officer can speak twice, all other members being limited to one speech.

Interesting question.  I can see how the rule could be construed as creating an ambiguity, but I don't think it does.   From my perspective, as a non-member, I believe the intent of the rule is simply to replace the "ten minutes per speech" rule in RONR with a "two minutes per speech" rule.

If the rule was to be interpreted in the manner my friend Mr. Mervosh suggests, then it could also be interpreted to replace ALL of the rules in RONR limiting debate.  It could mean, for example, that even the chair gets to debate every question twice for two minutes per speech.  And that non-debatable motions in RONR have suddenly become debatable with two speeches of two minutes each regardless of whether RONR classifies the motion as a debatable motion.  I think all of those interpretations are simply unreasonable. 

It seems to me that the intent of the rule is to simply change the ten minute rule in RONR to a Two minute rule.

Ultimately, of course, it is up to this organization to interpret its own rules.  It can do this with someone attempting to speak twice on an appeal and another member raising a point of order.  The chair would make a ruling which will be binding unless it is appealed and overturned by the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Leo said:

Does the adopted rule that a member can speak twice to the same question on the same day supersede the specific rule that in the case of an appeal only the presiding officer can speak twice, all other members being limited to one speech.

In the long run, the rule should be amended for clarity. If it was intended that Appeal is excluded, it would probably be best to simply amend the rule to remove this provision, so that the rule simply provides that speeches are limited to two minutes. Restating provisions which are already in RONR tends to accomplish nothing but to introduce ambiguity. If the rule was intended to apply to Appeal, the rule could be amended to specifically state “all debatable motions” or “including debatable appeals.”

In the interim, based upon the facts provided, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Brown that the intent of the rule appears to be simply to limit the amount of time for speeches, not to increase the number of speeches permitted on an appeal. It will ultimately, however, be up to the society to interpret its rules.

9 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

If the rule was to be interpreted in the manner my friend Mr. Mervosh suggests, then it could also be interpreted to replace ALL of the rules in RONR limiting debate.  It could mean, for example, that even the chair gets to debate every question twice for two minutes per speech.  And that non-debatable motions in RONR have suddenly become debatable with two speeches of two minutes each regardless of whether RONR classifies the motion as a debatable motion.  I think all of those interpretations are simply unreasonable. 

Yes, the rule certainly could be interpreted in any number of unreasonable ways, but this does not mean that an interpretation that it applies to all debatable motions, including debatable appeals, is unreasonable. Although I do not personally agree with Mr. Mervosh’s interpretation, it seems to be reasonable, and I think the interpretation can be applied without throwing all the rules limiting debate out the window.

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe that the special rule of order, if it does not specifically apply to appeals, would supersede only the general rule in RONR that limits speeches to two in number and ten minutes in duration.

It seems to me that the rule applying to appeals is a specific rule which should take precedence over a general rule, especially since it is more restrictive than the special rule, which itself is more restrictive than the rule in RONR.  I doubt that the intent of the special rule was to tighten restrictions in some cases and relax them in others.

But I agree that ultimately, your organization is responsible for interpreting the special rule, and for amending it if it is ambiguous.

[Leo]

A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.

Since the special rule of order makes a general statement about a speaker’s duration and number of times doesn’t it yield to the specific statement concerning a speaker’s number of times in and appeal?

[Atul Kapur]

But the twist here is whether a general rule in a Special Rule of Order yields to a specific rule in a lower-level document, namely the Parliamentary Authority?

I'm leaning towards answering Yes, but I'm not irrevocably there.

[Steven Britton]

44 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

But the twist here is whether a general rule in a Special Rule of Order yields to a specific rule in a lower-level document, namely the Parliamentary Authority?

I'm leaning towards answering Yes, but I'm not irrevocably there.

Ironically, resolving this question could likely be determined by appeal. In a similar vane, is the motion to commit the main motion to Committee Of The Whole in order under this rule?

[Joshua Katz]

No one has said anything, so far as I can tell, that suggests my answer up above was wrong, and I think it's the simplest and best answer. "You only get two speeches" even when adopted as part of a special rule (despite this rule already being in RONR) does not imply "you get two speeches when you're supposed to get one." It imposes a limit. If the sign says "all items reduced for quick sale to $9," this does not make $5 items more expensive.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Leo said:

A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.

Since the special rule of order makes a general statement about a speaker’s duration and number of times doesn’t it yield to the specific statement concerning a speaker’s number of times in and appeal?

That principle is not necessarily fully applicable when looking at multiple levels of rules, but I nonetheless concur that the rule in question likely was not meant to apply to debatable appeals.

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

But the twist here is whether a general rule in a Special Rule of Order yields to a specific rule in a lower-level document, namely the Parliamentary Authority?

I'm leaning towards answering Yes, but I'm not irrevocably there.

I do not think that I am prepared to state that this is correct as a general principle, but I think it is correct in this instance.

1 hour ago, Steven Britton said:

In a similar vane, is the motion to commit the main motion to Committee Of The Whole in order under this rule?

Yes, I think so.

Edited March 7, 2019 at 01:22 AM by Josh Martin