Reasons the Chair can forbid a person from speaking in debate?

[BabbsJohnson]

Are there any reasons that the Chair can cite for telling a person they cannot speak in debate?

Can the Chair impose limits or prohibitions on a specific speaker or speakers, based on the chairs own opinion of what the speaker has to say?

(For these questions, let’s assume the speaker’s remarks are germane, and do not contain violations of decorum).

 

 

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Are there any reasons that the Chair can cite for telling a person they cannot speak in debate?

Can the Chair impose limits or prohibitions on a specific speaker or speakers, based on the chairs own opinion of what the speaker has to say?

(For these questions, let’s assume the speaker’s remarks are germane, and do not contain violations of decorum).

 

 

I think you already know the answer to this. 

[BabbsJohnson]

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think you already know the answer to this. 

I’d like to think it is “no”, but I wanted to make sure I was asking the right question.

I asked a similar question prior to this, but included a specific reason (possible redundancy of the speaker’s debate  content).

I’m backing up a step so I get a more generalized answer if there is one, or if there was a specific thing in RONR to refer to if the Chair tries to limit or prohibit speech based on what they personally think should or should not be heard.

[Guest Zev]

Quote

 

1) If the member who made the motion claims the floor and has not already spoken on the question, he is entitled to be recognized in preference to other members.

2) No one is entitled to the floor a second time in debate on the same motion on the same day as long as any other member who has not spoken on this motion desires the floor.

3) In cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question (and the member to be recognized is not determined by [1] or [2] above), the chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure. To accomplish this, the chair may say, for example, "Since the last speaker spoke in favor of the motion, who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion?" or "Since the last speaker opposed the motion, who wishes to speak in its favor?"

 

RONR 11th edition page 32.

I know of no rule in this book that allows the presiding officer "to limit or prohibit speech based on what they personally think should or should not be heard."

[BabbsJohnson]

Thank you 

 

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Are there any reasons that the Chair can cite for telling a person they cannot speak in debate?

Since you have already ruled out comments which are indecorous or not germane, the only other reason I can think of is if the member has exceeded the time limits for speaking, or has already spoken the maximum number of times on a motion.

10 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can the Chair impose limits or prohibitions on a specific speaker or speakers, based on the chairs own opinion of what the speaker has to say?

No.

Edited June 24, 2019 at 01:27 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/23/2019 at 10:43 PM, .oOllXllOo. said:

Are there any reasons that the Chair can cite for telling a person they cannot speak in debate?

Can the Chair impose limits or prohibitions on a specific speaker or speakers, based on the chairs own opinion of what the speaker has to say?

(For these questions, let’s assume the speaker’s remarks are germane, and do not contain violations of decorum).

 

 

It may depend on how much hissing and spitting occurs among the audience (cf. RONR 11th ed., p. xxxiv).

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

It may depend on how much hissing and spitting occurs among the audience (cf. RONR 11th ed., p. xxxiv).

Or whether the member attends in full-body armor and carrying a sword. (A rule enacted by the House Of Commons.)

[BabbsJohnson]

On 6/24/2019 at 6:27 AM, Josh Martin said:

Since you have already ruled out comments which are indecorous or not germane, the only other reason I can think of is if the member has exceeded the time limits for speaking, or has already spoken the maximum number of times on a motion.

There are times when she will say “ok...last comment” when someone has been waiting to speak.

...even though we do not follow the 2 times a day rule for how many times one can speak (is it on a main motion, or?)

Typicslly, if a group does not follow the max of 2 times per day, per motion rule, (such as in small boards) does that mean there is no limit to the number of times one can speak, unless a special rule of order is enacted to impose a limit greater than twice?

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

There are times when she will say “ok...last comment” when someone has been waiting to speak.

I think we have already indicated that this behavior is improper. There is no rule that says the chairman may cut off the debate.

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

...even though we do not follow the 2 times a day rule for how many times one can speak (is it on a main motion, or?)

Your society adopts RONR and they just disregard the rule? Or have they adopted a special rule of order that enacts a different rule?

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Typicslly, [sic] if a group does not follow the max of 2 times per day, per motion rule, (such as in small boards) does that mean there is no limit to the number of times one can speak, unless a special rule of order is enacted to impose a limit greater than twice?

Precisely. This is what custom is all about. It may be followed for any number of reasons until someone raises a Point Of Order and gets a favorable ruling from the chairman or the assembly formally adopts the rule they wish to follow.

[BabbsJohnson]

10 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Your society adopts RONR and they just disregard the rule? Or have they adopted a special rule of order that enacts a different rule?

 

They disregard the rule because they do not care about the rules.

No special rule has been adopted.

If a limit on speaking x number of times were adopted, I’d bet money that some people would be constantly saying “just one last thing” over the limit a lot of the time, and that the rule would be inconsistently emforced, allowing some to keep slipping inna last comment, while others would be told they’d used up their turns.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

There are times when she will say “ok...last comment” when someone has been waiting to speak.

...even though we do not follow the 2 times a day rule for how many times one can speak (is it on a main motion, or?)

The chair, acting on her own, cannot decide that the next comment will be the “last comment.” Only the assembly may limit or end debate, and this requires a 2/3 vote.

11 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Typicslly, if a group does not follow the max of 2 times per day, per motion rule, (such as in small boards) does that mean there is no limit to the number of times one can speak, unless a special rule of order is enacted to impose a limit greater than twice?

Yes (except that there is no particular reason the limit in the special rule of order must be greater than twice). Under the small board rules, there is no limit to the number of times members may speak on a debatable question (except for an Appeal), unless the board adopts a special rule of order providing otherwise. This requires a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board). The board may also limit or end debate in a particular case by a 2/3 vote.

The board is also free, if it wishes, to determine that this aspect of the small board rules is not suitable for its purposes and that the default rule in RONR is controlling.

9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Your society adopts RONR and they just disregard the rule? Or have they adopted a special rule of order that enacts a different rule?

My understanding is that the assembly in question is a small board.

9 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If a limit on speaking x number of times were adopted, I’d bet money that some people would be constantly saying “just one last thing” over the limit a lot of the time, and that the rule would be inconsistently emforced, allowing some to keep slipping inna last comment, while others would be told they’d used up their turns.

The assembly may use the motion to Limit Debate or Extend Limits of Debate, by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent, to permit a member to speak after the member has exhausted their times to speak in debate. The assembly is free to use its discretion in when to do so.

[BabbsJohnson]

7 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

The chair, acting on her own, cannot decide that the next comment will be the “last comment.” Only the assembly may limit or end debate, and this requires a 2/3 vote.

Yes (except that there is no particular reason the limit in the special rule of order must be greater than twice). Under the small board rules, there is no limit to the number of times members may speak on a debatable question (except for an Appeal), unless the board adopts a special rule of order providing otherwise. This requires a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board). The board may also limit or end debate in a particular case by a 2/3 vote.

The board is also free, if it wishes, to determine that this aspect of the small board rules is not suitable for its purposes and that the default rule in RONR is controlling.

My understanding is that the assembly in question is a small board.

The assembly may use the motion to Limit Debate or Extend Limits of Debate, by a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent, to permit a member to speak after the member has exhausted their times to speak in debate. The assembly is free to use its discretion in when to do so.

 And what to do if the chair just shows favoritism amongst some,  allowing them additional comments & letting it slide at Cetera while others are held to the number of times they’ve spoken.

 Would that be another reason for another point of order to be called ?

 If the rules were being applied in consistently by the chair?

[Josh Martin]

14 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 And what to do if the chair just shows favoritism amongst some,  allowing them additional comments & letting it slide at Cetera while others are held to the number of times they’ve spoken.

 Would that be another reason for another point of order to be called ?

 If the rules were being applied in consistently by the chair?

Yes.