Encouraging secondary motions

[Alex Meed]

I often am in assemblies unaccustomed to parliamentary procedure. Their members often seem allergic to making motions. In the small boards where I usually work, I often have to ask people to turn their proposals into motions.

It's even worse when a motion is pending. Then, people begin debating the finer points of the motion, and even articulate specific proposals for its modification, but are loath to offer a motion embodying their ideas. The result is that the discussion goes down a rabbit hole instead of focusing on the general wisdom of the motion, and when the secondary motion is belatedly made the discussion awkwardly lumbers on for much longer than it has to. In one situation, a member was about to make a motion to amend, and then another member, without obtaining the floor, insisted that we "finish" discussing the pending question before considering amendments (a procedure that I believe originated from an assembly we'd been in where the presiding officer falsely held that to be a rule of order, and one that I felt powerless to correct as I was not in the chair). I also don't think the members recognize the two-speech-per-question-per-day limit and why it makes it advantageous to reserve discussions of minutiae for secondary motions.

How do I, either as chairman or as a fellow member, encourage members to make motions embodying their proposals instead of taking the discussion on the original question down strange rabbit holes?

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Alex M. said:

How do I, either as chairman or as a fellow member, encourage members to make motions embodying their proposals instead of taking the discussion on the original question down strange rabbit holes?

Well, you mention small boards, but I don't know if your question is entirely related to small boards or if you are also having similar problems in other assemblies, so I'll cover both.

Problem: "people... are loath to offer a motion embodying their ideas"

In a small board, the chairman could note that a member could make the motion, or state the question on the proposal without a formal motion, or even make the motion himself. Another member could note that a member could make the motion or make it himself.

In a larger assembly, the chairman could note to the assembly that a member could make the motion - "Does the member wish to make a motion?" Another member could note that a member make the motion or make it himself.

"In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present, some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business. The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies, in the following respects: ...

• When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion's having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions must be approved by vote under the same rules as in larger meetings, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a better method in small meetings...
• If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions**...

"**Informal discussion may be initiated by the chairman himself, which, in effect, enables the chairman to submit his own proposals without formally making a motion as described on pages 33–35 (although he has the right to make a motion if he wishes)." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 487-488)

Problem: "another member, without obtaining the floor"

Regardless of the size of the assembly, the solution is the same. The chairman (either on his own initiative or in response to a member) should call the member to order and note that members must seek recognition to speak in debate. While the rules for how to seek recognition are relaxed in small boards, it is still a requirement.

"Members may raise a hand instead of standing when seeking to obtain the floor..." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 487)

Problem: "another member, without obtaining the floor, insisted that we "finish" discussing the pending question before considering amendments"

Again, this procedure is incorrect regardless of the size of the assembly. The chairman can and should correct this matter. The chairman could say "The chairman notes that the correct procedure is to address amendments of the pending motion during consideration of the motion. Amendments are in order at this time." A member could handle it by stating it as a parliamentary inquiry. The member would first rise for a parliamentary inquiry, and say "Mr. Chairman, isn't it true that the correct procedure is to address amendments of the pending motion during consideration of the motion, and that amendments are in order at this time?" The chairman (hopefully) replies "Yes."

Problem: "I also don't think the members recognize the two-speech-per-question-per-day limit and why it makes it advantageous to reserve discussions of minutiae for secondary motions"

In a larger assembly, the chairman could start politely reminding members of this early on. So if a member speaks in debate, perhaps he could note (after the member has spoken) that the member has spoken once and can speak once more in debate on this motion. He might also note that this applies only to the immediately pending motion, and that members are free to speak twice on amendments as well. He could also note after a member has spoken twice that the member has spoken twice and may not speak further on this motion without the consent of the assembly. Finally, he could call people to order if a member tries to speak a third time. A member could handle this through parliamentary inquiries, or through a Point of Order if a member tries to speak a third time.

In a small board, this limit does not exist (unless the board adopts its own rules on the subject, or adopts a motion to limit debate in a particular case).

"There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a debatable question." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 488)

Finally, it may be advantageous for the assembly to have some parliamentary training outside of a meeting, whether from a knowledgeable person in the organization (such as the chairman) or from an outside expert.

Edited May 11, 2020 at 02:10 PM by Josh Martin