Discussion without a motion

[Guest Chuck G.]

Hi,  I am the moderator for our church's business meetings.  Under new business, members sometimes want to bring up a topic for discussion without making a motion.  My opinion is that new business is not the place for a discussion with a motion being on the floor and seconded first.  Is that correct as per RRO?  Can you cite support in RRO for the correct answer?

It he membership wishes to discuss something not addressed previously, when should such discussion occur in a parliamentary body?  

Thanks for your help.

 

[Joshua Katz]

14 minutes ago, Guest Chuck G. said:

Hi,  I am the moderator for our church's business meetings.  Under new business, members sometimes want to bring up a topic for discussion without making a motion.  My opinion is that new business is not the place for a discussion with a motion being on the floor and seconded first.  Is that correct as per RRO?  Can you cite support in RRO for the correct answer?

 

Yes, but it is also the case that meetings in general, outside the small board and committee contexts, are not times for discussion without motions. Debate should always be on a pending motion.

15 minutes ago, Guest Chuck G. said:

It he membership wishes to discuss something not addressed previously, when should such discussion occur in a parliamentary body?  

 

If it hasn't been discussed previously by anyone, new business - but by someone making a motion. If it has been discussed by a committee, that committee should make a recommendation in its report.

Suppose the clubhouse needs painting. In an ordinary assembly, it is never in order to say "let's talk about painting the clubhouse" and have a general discussion. And for good reason - doing that will cause the discussion to go in circles, and people will fail to address what others say. People will speak up for painting it blue, and the next person to be recognized may have sought the floor to speak for red, and so will ignore the blue argument just made.

Instead, someone should move to paint the clubhouse blue. Those in favor of red can move to amend, and while that amendment is pending, those in favor of yellow can say "if this is voted down, I will move to amend to yellow." At all times, though, debate will be on the choice to be made - i.e. while the blue amendment is pending, debate is on whether, if the clubhouse is to be painted, it should be blue or red. This will force, or at least encourage, people to debate in a responsive manner - those who favor the amendment will need to say why it is better, not just why it is good.

[Josh Martin]

9 minutes ago, Guest Chuck G. said:

Hi,  I am the moderator for our church's business meetings.  Under new business, members sometimes want to bring up a topic for discussion without making a motion.  My opinion is that new business is not the place for a discussion with a motion being on the floor and seconded first.  Is that correct as per RRO?  Can you cite support in RRO for the correct answer?

Yes, it is correct that New Business is not the proper place for discussions without a motion.

“Under parliamentary procedure, strictly speaking, discussion of any subject is permitted only with reference to a pending motion. When necessary, a motion can be prefaced by a few words of explanation, which must not become a speech; or a member can first request information, or he can indicate briefly what he wishes to propose and can ask the chair to assist him in wording an appropriate motion. In general, however, when a member has obtained the floor while no motion is pending—unless it is for a special purpose, such as to ask a question—he makes a motion immediately. Any desired improvements upon the member's proposal can be accomplished by several methods after the motion has been made (for a summary, see pp. 114–16). For a member to begin to discuss a matter while no question is pending, without promptly leading to a motion, implies an unusual circumstance and requires permission of the assembly (see p. 299) in addition to obtaining the floor. In larger assemblies, this rule requires firm enforcement. In smaller meetings, it may sometimes be relaxed with constructive effect if the members are not accustomed to working under the standard rule. Unless the assembly has specifically authorized that a particular subject be discussed while no motion is pending, however, such a discussion can be entered into only at the sufferance of the chair or until a point of order is made; and in the latter case, the chair must immediately require that a motion be offered or the discussion cease. The general rule against discussion without a motion is one of parliamentary procedure's powerful tools for keeping business "on track," and an observance of its spirit can be an important factor in making even a very small meeting rapidly moving and interesting.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs.34-35)

21 minutes ago, Guest Chuck G. said:

If the membership wishes to discuss something not addressed previously, when should such discussion occur in a parliamentary body?  

There is never a proper time during a meeting to discuss a matter without a motion pending, unless the assembly has specifically granted permission to do so.

[Steven Britton]

22 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

 

There is never a proper time during a meeting to discuss a matter without a motion pending, unless the assembly has specifically granted permission to do so.

Except that:

RONR, 11th Edition, pp. 362 - 363 states:

After the completion of new business—that is, when no one claims the floor to make a motion in response to the chair's query, "Is there any further new business?"—the chair may  proceed to one or more of the following headings, in an order that may be subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization. 

Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here. Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order. 

It would not be out of order for a member to offer an amendment to the meeting's agenda at the beginning of the meeting, which provides for Good of the Order or Open Forum to the order of the meeting's business.

Edited September 2, 2019 at 06:05 PM by Steven Britton
Clarifying citation

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Steven Britton said:

It would not be out of order for a member to offer an amendment to the meeting's agenda at the beginning of the meeting, which provides for Good of the Order or Open Forum to the order of the meeting's business.

That sounds like the assembly granting permission to do so, to me.

[Steven Britton]

29 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

That sounds like the assembly granting permission to do so, to me.

Perhaps, but if the  order is subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization, it could easily be permitted by precedence (pp. 251 - 252), or custom, which could ultimately lead to the final decision by the assembly, but not necessarily the immediate decision.

In a contentious assembly, Its perhaps a better solution for the moderator to allow for this sort of item with a time limitation (maybe 3 minutes), and to provide for limited rebuttal if necessary.

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, Steven Britton said:

In a contentious assembly, Its perhaps a better solution for the moderator to allow for this sort of item with a time limitation (maybe 3 minutes), and to provide for limited rebuttal if necessary.

What exactly allows the moderator/chair to do this? If the assembly has decided to permit open discussion, the parameters will be those set by the assembly. If not, I don't see how the chair can allow it. Either way, while this may be a good idea, I don't see how the moderator/chair can just do it. Certainly he can suggest it, though.

[Steven Britton]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

What exactly allows the moderator/chair to do this? If the assembly has decided to permit open discussion, the parameters will be those set by the assembly. If not, I don't see how the chair can allow it. Either way, while this may be a good idea, I don't see how the moderator/chair can just do it. Certainly he can suggest it, though.

RONR, pp. 251 - 252:

PRECEDENT. The minutes include the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling (see p. 470, ll. 15–17). The ruling and its rationale serve as a precedent for future reference by the chair and the assembly, unless overturned on appeal, the result of which is also recorded in the minutes and may create a contrary precedent. When similar issues arise in the future, such precedents are persuasive in resolving them—that is, they carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but they are not binding on the chair or the assembly. The weight given to precedent increases with the number of times the same or similar rulings have been repeated and with the length of time during which the assembly has consistently adhered to them. 
If an assembly is or becomes dissatisfied with a precedent, it may be overruled, in whole or in part, by a later ruling of the chair or a decision of the assembly in an appeal in a similar situation, which will then create a new precedent. Alternatively, adoption, rescission, or amendment  of a bylaw provision, special rule of order, standing rule, or other motion may alter the rule or policy on which the unsatisfactory precedent was based. 

[Joshua Katz]

Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I still don't see it. What's the ruling? If the assembly says "we're going to have open discussion" and the chair says "for 3 minutes," I don't consider that a ruling, but simply an effort by the chair to impose his will. If the chair says "we're going to have open discussion for 3 minutes," I'd say the same. If no one raises a point of order/appeal, okay, fine, but what precedent does it set, exactly? My issue is that I don't see there being a ruling at all.

[Josh Martin]

6 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

Except that:

RONR, 11th Edition, pp. 362 - 363 states:

After the completion of new business—that is, when no one claims the floor to make a motion in response to the chair's query, "Is there any further new business?"—the chair may  proceed to one or more of the following headings, in an order that may be subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization. 

Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here. Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order. 

It would not be out of order for a member to offer an amendment to the meeting's agenda at the beginning of the meeting, which provides for Good of the Order or Open Forum to the order of the meeting's business.

Yes, a member certainly could do so, but since the text notes that what is involved under this heading “may vary in character,” and that it commonly permits “informal observations (which, in my view, is still short of a full discussion) one hopes the member will also clarify that he specifically desires for this heading to permit discussion of a subject without a motion pending (in which event, the rule on pgs. 34-35 is satisfied anyway).

3 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

Perhaps, but if the  order is subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization, it could easily be permitted by precedence (pp. 251 - 252), or custom, which could ultimately lead to the final decision by the assembly, but not necessarily the immediate decision.

Yes, but if it was customary in the OP’s organization to have a heading for the purpose of permitting discussion of a subject without a motion pending, then his question about the appropriate place for such discussions would seem to be unnecessary.

3 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

PRECEDENT. The minutes include the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling (see p. 470, ll. 15–17).

I don’t see how a precedent would be created on this subject, since I don’t see what rule the chair’s ruling would be based on (unless we are speculating it is due to some as yet unmentioned rule if the assembly). 

It seems to me that what is previously described is a request for the chair by unanimous consent to limit the discussion (which is only permitted in the first place because the assembly has agreed to it) to provide a limit of three minutes, plus a rebuttal if necessary. This does not, however, create a precedent because it is not s ruling. (If the assembly does this regularly, it might create a custom.)

Edited September 3, 2019 at 12:39 AM by Josh Martin