Unending Questions

[Guest JOW]

How can you end questions after a treasurer asked for questions after her report?

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

In my opinion, this falls under the category of "presiding skills." If a presiding officer simply allows the Treasurer to engage in an open and informal "discussion" with members, then the presider has lost his or her legitimate control of the meeting. 

While the Treasurer, upon completion of his or her presentation, may offer to answer questions (which is common, in my experience), the presiding officer is still responsible for recognizing those who seek recognition to ask questions, and for calling on the Treasurer to answer them.

Presiding officers have, among their duties, the responsibility "to expedite business in every way compatible with the rights of members" (RONR 12th Ed. 47:7(7)). The presiding officer therefore has the right (and responsibility) to simply move on to the next item on the agenda whenever he or she determines it is expeditious to do, so unless anyone offers a motion of some sort.

[Rob Elsman]

Under what rule does the treasurer ask for questions after presenting a report for information only?

[Richard Brown]

5 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Under what rule does the treasurer ask for questions after presenting a report for information only?

Is there a rule that prohibits it? Regardless, questions about the treasurer’s report or any other report are both permissible and common. 
 

I have some concerns, however, about the chair just arbitrarily deciding that there have been enough questions as Dr. Goodwiller suggested. I have not researched the forum, but it seems to me in the past we have come up with suggestions that a member move to close debate (or questions)  or to move on to the next item of business. 

I would like to see us discuss this a bit further.  It is an area that has caused me concern, as well.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

26 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I have some concerns, however, about the chair just arbitrarily deciding that there have been enough questions as Dr. Goodwiller suggested. I have not researched the forum, but it seems to me in the past we have come up with suggestions that a member move to close debate (or questions)  or to move on to the next item of business. 

As would I, and that is not what I meant to suggest. I would consider a legitimate "Request for Information" to be among the motions offered by a member of the assembly. What I was attempting to convey is that by maintaining some formality, questions are likely to be curtailed. And in my first sentence about "presiding skills," it think a good presider could tactfully suggest that further questions be addressed in some other way and/or suggest a motion that might allow the assembly to move forward.

If there are any strings in the forum about moving the previous question when there is no pending question, I would be very interested to review them. I concur that this is a common and challenging problem in meetings.

[Gary Novosielski]

40 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Is there a rule that prohibits it? Regardless, questions about the treasurer’s report or any other report are both permissible and common. 
 

I have some concerns, however, about the chair just arbitrarily deciding that there have been enough questions as Dr. Goodwiller suggested. I have not researched the forum, but it seems to me in the past we have come up with suggestions that a member move to close debate (or questions)  or to move on to the next item of business. 

I would like to see us discuss this a bit further.  It is an area that has caused me concern, as well.

I believe that it would be up to the Treasurer to decide whether or not to entertain a given question, as it would be with any other situation where a member asked if someone would yield for a question.  If questions get out of hand, the Treasurer could ask that additional questions be submitted by email, and decline to respond to additional questions.  The Chair could also suggest this alternative.

The Previous Question would not be applicable, since there is no pending question.

[Nathan Zook]

On 11/1/2020 at 4:14 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I believe that it would be up to the Treasurer to decide whether or not to entertain a given question, as it would be with any other situation where a member asked if someone would yield for a question.  If questions get out of hand, the Treasurer could ask that additional questions be submitted by email, and decline to respond to additional questions.  The Chair could also suggest this alternative.

The Previous Question would not be applicable, since there is no pending question.

Given that the Treasurer is presumably elected by the body that they are reporting to, I wonder on what basis does the Treasurer have the right to refuse questions?

If, as suggested above, the chairman requires that the floor be obtained for a member to ask questions, then the chair is clearly enabled to rule a particular question out of order, with the usual Appeal process available.  This might be of their own accord or in response to a Point of Order, perhaps made informally, by the Treasurer or any other member of the assembly.  Likewise, the chair might suggest that an individual meet privately with the Treasurer, should it appear that the member's questions are not supported by the rest of the body, even going so far as to cut off the questions of that member if the member exceeds the time allotted for individuals to debate debatable questions.

And I would likewise view a motion to Proceed with the Next Item of Business to be a form of cutting off debate--it is certainly cutting off discussion.

Not that a report of an officer creates a situation where debate, in the sense of RONR is allowed, just that the logic for limiting discussions seems to me to be the same.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/3/2020 at 3:20 AM, Nathan Zook said:

Given that the Treasurer is presumably elected by the body that they are reporting to, I wonder on what basis does the Treasurer have the right to refuse questions?

In this scenario the Treasurer has presumably presented the Treasurer's report.  That satisfies the duty to report.  The treasurer has the right to decline to answer questions because RONR says so.  It is also possible for the 'answer' to be "I don't know," or "I'm not prepared to say at this time," or "If you e-mail or call me, I can give you a more complete answer than I can provide at the moment."

 

On 11/3/2020 at 3:20 AM, Nathan Zook said:

If, as suggested above, the chairman requires that the floor be obtained for a member to ask questions, then the chair is clearly enabled to rule a particular question out of order, with the usual Appeal process available.  This might be of their own accord or in response to a Point of Order, perhaps made informally, by the Treasurer or any other member of the assembly.  Likewise, the chair might suggest that an individual meet privately with the Treasurer, should it appear that the member's questions are not supported by the rest of the body, even going so far as to cut off the questions of that member if the member exceeds the time allotted for individuals to debate debatable questions.

The cnair can certainly rule a question out of order if it violates decorum, but failing that, whether or not the question will be answered right then and there, or at all, is up to the person to whom it is addressed.  That is why this is referred to as a Request for Information, not a Demand for Information.   If the time allotted for the Treasurer's report is being exceeded then the chair can certainly move on.

 

On 11/3/2020 at 3:20 AM, Nathan Zook said:

And I would likewise view a motion to Proceed with the Next Item of Business to be a form of cutting off debate--it is certainly cutting off discussion.

I presume you're referring to the motion to Call for the Orders of the Day.  That would not be in order as long as the chair has been properly following the agenda or program for the meeting.  

18:3      If the presiding officer consistently perms his duty of announcing the business to come before the assembly in its proper order, there will be no occasion for calling for the orders of the day.

Edited November 5, 2020 at 05:45 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Nathan Zook]

27 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

The cnair can certainly rule a question out of order if it violates decorum, but failing that, whether or not the question will be answered right then and there, or at all, is up to the person to whom it is addressed.  That is why this is referred to as a Request for Information, not a Demand for Information.   If the time allotted for the Treasurer's report is being exceeded then the chair can certainly move on.

 

I have read the sections referenced in the index under Officers, Reports.  No where do I find that the Treasurer has the right to refuse an order by the assembly to answer a question non-evasively.  Nor do I find in the grey section a motion specific to compelling an officer to respond to a question.  I therefore am of the view that the officers are subordinate to the assembly, and that if they refuse a order by the assembly, such as to answer a question completely, truthfully, and non-evasively, that they would be subject to discipline by the body.

Based on this view, I reasoned further that a motion to compel an answer to a question would pass by majority vote.  Furthermore, as we well know that questions and answers are often debate by another name, it seems reasonable to treat a protracted series of questions as if it were debate.  As mentioned by others, if we do, we are in a situation of debate without a pending motion, or without an explicit motion.  In this case, it appears to me that the assembly is more-or-less debating an implicit motion to be satisfied with the report of the Treasurer.

 

28 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

... That is why this is referred to as a Request for Information, not a Demand for Information.

Given that main motions arising out the report of an officer are in order at the time of the officer's report, I don't really understand your position.  Yes, a Request for Information is the proper form to initiate a question or series of questions on the report.  However, you seem to be suggesting that a motion to compel a complete, truthful, and non-evasive answer to a question would not be in order.  Am I correct?  If so, on what basis?

 

59 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

...  If the time allotted for the Treasurer's report is being exceeded then the chair can certainly move on.

Certainly, if the bylaws specific that a certain amount of time is set aside for the report of the Treasurer, or that some late order of business occur at a set time, I would agree.  But I do not see this as part of the matter we have discussed up until now.

[Rob Elsman]

Getting back to the poster's original question, a "Q&A" after the presentation of a treasurer's report for information only is not permitted.  The treasurer needs to be retrained to present the report; pick up his papers; and, take his seat.

[Joshua Katz]

42 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

Given that main motions arising out the report of an officer are in order at the time of the officer's report, I don't really understand your position.  Yes, a Request for Information is the proper form to initiate a question or series of questions on the report.  However, you seem to be suggesting that a motion to compel a complete, truthful, and non-evasive answer to a question would not be in order.  Am I correct?  If so, on what basis?

 

Not taking a position on whether it's in order or not, but it seems like an odd concept to me. What if the person doesn't know the answer? Suppose the assembly compels me to say who will win Arizona. What do I do? What if it compels me to say what happened in a different body's executive session?

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I have read the sections referenced in the index under Officers, Reports.  No where do I find that the Treasurer has the right to refuse an order by the assembly to answer a question non-evasively.  Nor do I find in the grey section a motion specific to compelling an officer to respond to a question.  I therefore am of the view that the officers are subordinate to the assembly, and that if they refuse a order by the assembly, such as to answer a question completely, truthfully, and non-evasively, that they would be subject to discipline by the body.

Based on this view, I reasoned further that a motion to compel an answer to a question would pass by majority vote.  Furthermore, as we well know that questions and answers are often debate by another name, it seems reasonable to treat a protracted series of questions as if it were debate.  As mentioned by others, if we do, we are in a situation of debate without a pending motion, or without an explicit motion.  In this case, it appears to me that the assembly is more-or-less debating an implicit motion to be satisfied with the report of the Treasurer.

 

Given that main motions arising out the report of an officer are in order at the time of the officer's report, I don't really understand your position.  Yes, a Request for Information is the proper form to initiate a question or series of questions on the report.  However, you seem to be suggesting that a motion to compel a complete, truthful, and non-evasive answer to a question would not be in order.  Am I correct?  If so, on what basis?

 

Certainly, if the bylaws specific that a certain amount of time is set aside for the report of the Treasurer, or that some late order of business occur at a set time, I would agree.  But I do not see this as part of the matter we have discussed up until now.

You say you have not found any reference to a motion to compel someone to answer, yet you continue to assert that there is one.

I know of no rule that compels anyone to say anything.  A member cannot be compelled to explain a vote or an abstention, cannot be compelled to participate in debate, and cannot even be compelled to defend themselves in a trial.  No rule under Request for Information suggests such a thing.  Besides, when raising a Request for Information, it is not the assembly which is ordering it, but a single member.  No member has the right to order people around.  

If a motion is made arising out of an officer's or committee report, then the normal rules of debate apply, but asking questions, when it begins to sound like a debate, should be ended by the chair.  Additionally, all Requests for Information must be in the form of a question, and directed to/through the chair.  It is the chair's duty to enforce this rule, and not allow a colloquy to devolve into an argument.

I am not claiming that an assembly may not instruct its officers to present truthful and pertinent information to the assembly.  It certainly may.  But I think that while the assembly (though not an individual member) may direct the Treasurer to provide a report on a particular matter of interest, I do not believe it can order the Treasurer to provide any and all information it desires, on the spot, without warning.

[Atul Kapur]

10 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

a "Q&A" after the presentation of a treasurer's report for information only is not permitted.

What is your citation to back up this statement that a Request for Information (RFI) would be out of order?

RONR (12th ed.) 33:2(1) (aka SDC 1) says a RFI can, "be made at any time when no question is pending."

Ibid 48:24 says: "No action of acceptance by the assembly is required--or proper. . ." It doesn't prohibit a RFI.

Ibid 33:6 says that a RFI is a request, "for information relevant to the business at hand". Immediately after the treasurer's report is presented, wouldn't that be the business at hand?

 

[Rob Elsman]

Unfortunately, Mr. Kapur has confused a Request for Information with a Question and Answer period, which latter is not appropriate for a business meeting.

[Atul Kapur]

How else does one pose a question to the Treasurer in RONR?

Or in other words, define for me the difference between a "Question and Answer period" and a series of RFI's.

And, while you're at it, please provide the citation for your statement.

On 11/5/2020 at 2:30 PM, Rob Elsman said:

a "Q&A" after the presentation of a treasurer's report for information only is not permitted.

 

[Rob Elsman]

"Q&A" sessions are discussed at length on the internet; they are not discussed in RONR, because they are not appropriate during a business meeting.  Request for Information is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 33:6-10.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Kapur.  For years it has been my understanding that questions (requests for information) are appropriate immediately following reports of officers and committees.  Based on my experience, it is certainly customary.  Regardless of whether it is mentioned in RONR, General Robert does discuss it on page 268 of Parliamentary Law where he says, in the section on "Making Reports", that " . . . the reporting member should be prepared to give reasons for the recommendation and to answer criticisms."   (Emphasis added).   

In addition, I am confident that there are numerous threads in this forum where there is discussion regarding the propriety of asking questions about a report immediately following  the presentation of the report.  I think in at least a couple of those threads we had discussions regarding how to terminate the "question period" in order to move on to other business.   My memory as to details is vague, but I'm thinking the suggestions were a motion to move on to the next item of business or to terminate discussion, much in the manner of a motion for the previous question.  

 

[Atul Kapur]

56 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

"Q&A" sessions are discussed at length on the internet; they are not discussed in RONR, because they are not appropriate during a business meeting.  Request for Information is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 33:6-10.

So your answer to my request for a citation supporting your point is to give the same citation I used that refutes your point.

Are you, in fact, saying that a Request for Information arising from the Treasurer's report should be ruled not in order? What about multiple people rising (or lining up at the microphone) to ask separate Requests for Information? And how is multiple requests different from Q&A period?

[Gary Novosielski]

22 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Unfortunately, Mr. Kapur has confused a Request for Information with a Question and Answer period, which latter is not appropriate for a business meeting.

In what way is a series of Requests for Information any different from a "Question and Answer" period, beyond the fact that the latter phrase is not contained in RONR at all, with the exception of a few references to this very forum?

[Nathan Zook]

On 11/5/2020 at 11:41 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Not taking a position on whether it's in order or not, but it seems like an odd concept to me. What if the person doesn't know the answer? Suppose the assembly compels me to say who will win Arizona. What do I do? What if it compels me to say what happened in a different body's executive session?

Then one either responds "I do not know", or "I am not permitted to say."  How the assembly responds to such an answer is the business of the assembly.

[Nathan Zook]

On 11/5/2020 at 1:39 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You say you have not found any reference to a motion to compel someone to answer, yet you continue to assert that there is one.

I know of no rule that compels anyone to say anything.  A member cannot be compelled to explain a vote or an abstention, cannot be compelled to participate in debate, and cannot even be compelled to defend themselves in a trial.  No rule under Request for Information suggests such a thing.  Besides, when raising a Request for Information, it is not the assembly which is ordering it, but a single member.  No member has the right to order people around.  

If a motion is made arising out of an officer's or committee report, then the normal rules of debate apply, but asking questions, when it begins to sound like a debate, should be ended by the chair.  Additionally, all Requests for Information must be in the form of a question, and directed to/through the chair.  It is the chair's duty to enforce this rule, and not allow a colloquy to devolve into an argument.

I am not claiming that an assembly may not instruct its officers to present truthful and pertinent information to the assembly.  It certainly may.  But I think that while the assembly (though not an individual member) may direct the Treasurer to provide a report on a particular matter of interest, I do not believe it can order the Treasurer to provide any and all information it desires, on the spot, without warning.

 

"Nor do I find in the grey section a motion specific to compelling an officer to respond to a question."

I don't find a motion specific to painting the clubhouse blue, either.  That does not mean that such a motion does not exist, or that it is out of order.

Nor do I need a rule of compelling for a motion to compel to be in order.

I fully agree that no member may compel another.  But the body most certainly can compel members on pain of whatever penalty the body might decide as described by their bylaws and RONR.  So if a member requests (through the chair) some information, and the chair permits it, if the officer refuses, that the requesting member might immediately respond with a motion to compel an answer.  If the motion passes, and the officer still refuses, then this becomes an offense committed at a meeting, and the standard disciplinary process can be followed.  If the chair does not permit the question, the requesting member can Appeal.

I fully agree that the chair needs to maintain proper order, and keeping questions from devolving into debate is certainly a common part of this duty.  But I believe that you are question-begging.  Under RONR, limiting discussion to put motions is a primary tool in this regard, but the report of officers is a period during which there is no motion, but discussion (in the form of questions of the officer about the report) is desirable.  The point of our discussion is to suss out the lines of managing this discussion-sans-motion situation.

As another has mentioned, there could be ten different people lined up to ask ten different questions of the reporting officer.  Surely the chair lacks the authority to deny any of these members the right to even attempt to ask a question.  But surely also, the body cannot be compelled to suspend all other business until these members are all satisfied.  So what is to be done?

My view is that we may best proceed as if an implicit motion to be satisfied with the report of the officer were before the body.  Similar to accepting of the minutes, this implicit motion "passes" when discussion stops.  Similar to a main motion, the question may be called to stop the discussion.  Uniquely, the motion auto-tables when some motion relating to the report is made, and is automatically taken from the table when such a motion is finally disposed of.

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

My view is that we may best proceed as if an implicit motion to be satisfied with the report of the officer were before the body.

I feel the same way. The assembly can then control these things with a motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate or a motion to "Close Questions" similar to Close Nominations.

[J. J.]

First, there is no "question and answer" section of a meeting.  If the society wants that, they may establish it, along with a motion to "close questions," as a special rule.

There is a motion request for information, and conceivably they could be serial.  The methods to deal with this would be the treasurer to decline to answer any additional question.  In theory, if the treasurer has reported and a member seeks recognition, the time is deducted from the member.  There will be a finite number number of questions, and answers.