Participation of non-members in meeting

[Guest Kelly]

Basic assumption: In a meeting, members of the public do not have the right to speak or vote. The meeting does not have any "open comment" period.

Let's say a member of the public wishes to join the debate amongst members. How can this be done? Can the chair simply recognize the non-member? Or, does the chair recognize the non-member via automatic consent? Or must a vote of the members be taken to allow the chair to recognize a non-member and permit them to speak?

Do you have any recommendations on what the chair should say in these circumstances?

[Rob Elsman]

Outside of bodies using the "relaxed" rules for small boards, the presiding officer, even though a member of the assembly, should refrain from making motions in order to protect his appearance of impartiality.  Another member may rise and be assigned the floor for the purpose of making an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with the spectator speaking in debate.  This motion requires a two-thirds vote (or unanimous consent) for adoption.

In bodies using the "relaxed" rules for small boards, the presiding officer can make the motion the same as any other member.

See RONR (12th ed.) §25.

[Richard Brown]

Nonmembers may be permitted to attend meetings and to speak in meetings with the consent of the assembly. It might be custom that guests (or nonmembers) are routinely permitted to attend without permission being sought.  If the meetings are normally closed and guests  are normally not permitted, a majority vote (or unanimous consent) is required to permit a nonmember to attend.

Likewise, nonmembers do not have the right to speak at meetings without permission. Permission may be granted to a non-member to address the assembly by a majority vote or unanimous consent.  

However, in order to permit a nonmember to speak in debate, the rules must be suspended which requires a two thirds vote (or unanimous consent).

 Normally, matters of this nature are handled without objection by unanimous consent. However, if there is an objection, a vote must be taken.  

Although any member may request that a non-member be allowed to attend or to speak or to speak in debate, it is quite common for the chair to handle these matters with the simple statement, “is there any objection to our guest addressing the assembly (or participating in the debate on this motion)?”  “Hearing none, Mr. Smith’s guest may now address the assembly“.

it is frequently handled even less formally with than that, with the chair simply stating “if there is no objection I am going to permit our guest to address the assembly for five minutes about the upcoming Bond issue for a new Business park.“

it has been my experience that matters of this type are normally handled by the chair rather than by a member making a motion although it is certainly appropriate for a member to make the appropriate motions.

[Guest Puzzling]

15 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Likewise, nonmembers do not have the right to speak at meetings without permission. Permission may be granted to a non-member to address the assembly by a majority vote or unanimous consent.  

Where can I find :

Permission may be granted to a non-member to address the assembly by a majority vote

in RONR? (I removed the bit about by unanimous consent because that could also be a 2/3 supermajority )

[Rob Elsman]

There is no such thing as a "2/3 supermajority".

[George Mervosh]

12 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Where can I find :

Permission may be granted to a non-member to address the assembly by a majority vote

You won't if you're referring to addressing the assembly and not debating a pending question.  It is an ordinary main motion and a majority vote is required since it doesn't fit any of the exception shown in 10:8 7).

Oh, and what Mr. Elsman said.

Edited March 3, 2021 at 07:35 PM by George Mervosh

[Guest Kelly]

4 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Outside of bodies using the "relaxed" rules for small boards, the presiding officer, even though a member of the assembly, should refrain from making motions in order to protect his appearance of impartiality.  Another member may rise and be assigned the floor for the purpose of making an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with the spectator speaking in debate.  This motion requires a two-thirds vote (or unanimous consent) for adoption.

In bodies using the "relaxed" rules for small boards, the presiding officer can make the motion the same as any other member.

See RONR (12th ed.) §25.

This is helpful. Thank you Mr. Elsman!

[Guest Kelly]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Nonmembers may be permitted to attend meetings and to speak in meetings with the consent of the assembly. It might be custom that guests (or nonmembers) are routinely permitted to attend without permission being sought.  If the meetings are normally closed and guests  are normally not permitted, a majority vote (or unanimous consent) is required to permit a nonmember to attend.

Likewise, nonmembers do not have the right to speak at meetings without permission. Permission may be granted to a non-member to address the assembly by a majority vote or unanimous consent.  

However, in order to permit a nonmember to speak in debate, the rules must be suspended which requires a two thirds vote (or unanimous consent).

 Normally, matters of this nature are handled without objection by unanimous consent. However, if there is an objection, a vote must be taken.  

Although any member may request that a non-member be allowed to attend or to speak or to speak in debate, it is quite common for the chair to handle these matters with the simple statement, “is there any objection to our guest addressing the assembly (or participating in the debate on this motion)?”  “Hearing none, Mr. Smith’s guest may now address the assembly“.

it is frequently handled even less formally with than that, with the chair simply stating “if there is no objection I am going to permit our guest to address the assembly for five minutes about the upcoming Bond issue for a new Business park.“

it has been my experience that matters of this type are normally handled by the chair rather than by a member making a motion although it is certainly appropriate for a member to make the appropriate motions.

Thanks for sharing your expertise; very helpful. I appreciate it Mr. Brown!

[Guest Puzzling]

14 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

You won't if you're referring to addressing the assembly and not debating a pending question.  It is an ordinary main motion and a majority vote is required since it doesn't fit any of the exception shown in 10:8 7).

Does it not fall under 10:8 7) b?

Adopting of the motion would have the effect of suspending a rule of order or a parliamentary right of members.

Assuming off course that the rule that non-profit members have no rights is a rule of order.

[George Mervosh]

2 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Does it not fall under 10:8 7) b?

Adopting of the motion would have the effect of suspending a rule of order or a parliamentary right of members.

Assuming off course that the rule that non-profit members have no rights is a rule of order.

No.  An assembly allowing a non member to speak (OTHER than allowing them to speak in debate on a pending debatable motion ) suspends no rule.

[Richard Brown]

20 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Where can I find :

Permission may be granted to a non-member to address the assembly by a majority vote in RONR? . . . . 

Guest Puzzling,  I don’t think you are correctly understanding the situation or the rules regarding guests attending meetings and speaking at meetings. There is no rule in RONR which prohibits nonmembers from attending meetings or which prohibits them from speaking at meetings. RONR simply says that they have no RIGHT to attend meetings or to speak at meetings of organizations they are not members of  

Determining who may attend their meetings and who may speak at their meetings is a privilege that the membership (or the assembly) can grant to nonmembers. That can be done by an ordinary motion with a majority vote. The assembly is not suspending any rules. It is merely granting permission to a non-member to do something.

You might look at it as similar to inviting non-members to attend an executive session. RONR is clear that nonmembers of a body that is going into executive session do not have a right to attend the  executive session, but the assembly may vote to go into executive session and may invite non-members to attend it and to participate in it by a regular majority vote.  If it does not require a suspension of the rules and a two thirds vote to invite a nonmember to attend and to take part in an executive session, why do you think it would it be required at a regular membership meeting? 

However, RONR does have a rule which provides that only members may actually speak in debate, therefore, to permit a non-member to speak in debate requires a suspension of the rules, which must be done by a two-thirds vote.  25:9, footnote 7 (RONR 12th Ed).   See also 9:25 and 61:19. 

[Guest Puzzling]

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Puzzling,  I don’t think you are correctly understanding the situation or the rules regarding guests attending meetings and speaking at meetings. There is no rule in RONR which prohibits nonmembers from attending meetings or which prohibits them from speaking at meetings. RONR simply says that they have no RIGHT to attend meetings or to speak at meetings of organizations they are not members of  

Determining who may attend their meetings and who may speak at their meetings is a privilege that the membership (or the assembly) can grant to nonmembers. That can be done by an ordinary motion with a majority vote. The assembly is not suspending any rules. It is merely granting permission to a non-member to do something.

You might look at it as similar to inviting non-members to attend an executive session. RONR is clear that nonmembers of a body that is going into executive session do not have a right to attend the  executive session, but the assembly may vote to go into executive session and may invite non-members to attend it and to participate in it by a regular majority vote.  If it does not require a suspension of the rules and a two thirds vote to invite a nonmember to attend and to take part in an executive session, why do you think it would it be required at a regular membership meeting? 

However, RONR does have a rule which provides that only members may actually speak in debate, therefore, to permit a non-member to speak in debate requires a suspension of the rules, which must be done by a two-thirds vote.  25:9, footnote 7 (RONR 12th Ed).   See also 9:25 and 61:19. 

 

Thanks for your long and clear reply,.

I did not see much fundamental difference between inviting guests to join a debate and inviting guests  to give their option /information on a motion. 

In most meeting I have been in the difference was (incorrectly) rather fluid.

Guess will try next time to get more of a  split between debate (by members) from guest speakers on a question.

 

 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

11 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

I did not see much fundamental difference between inviting guests to join a debate and inviting guests  to give their option /information on a motion. 

That isn't what anyone is saying. If a motion is under consideration, then speaking about the motion is "debate" so the guest would be participating in the debate and a suspension of the rule would be required.

When Mr. Brown and Mr. Mervosh discuss a guest speaking at a meeting, they mean other than speaking to a motion (for example, I used to attend a youth group that raised money at each annual meeting for a charity in the meeting city. We allowed someone from the charity to speak at the meeting to tell us about their work). No rule needs to be suspended for this.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Kapur's distinction.  To make the distinction clearer, the former is "debate"; the latter is making a "presentation".

[Guest Puzzling]

5 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I agree with Mr. Kapur's distinction.  To make the distinction clearer, the former is "debate"; the latter is making a "presentation".

It might have a different name but in practice it might be difficult to distinguish them if not rigorously separated.

In an earlier post 

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36730-who-can-speak-on-a-motion-that-will-be-presented-do-they-have-to-be-dues-paying-members/?tab=comments#comment-218922

I had the same question and in that situation the guest probably would give a partial opinion over a motion.  

At what point could he be granted permission to give his presentation?  

It can only before the motion is pending or during the debate over the same motion, in RONR there is nothing between the stating of the motion by the chair and the start of the debate if I am correct.

[Atul Kapur]

17 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

It might have a different name but in practice it might be difficult to distinguish them if not rigorously separated.

Here's one way: Is the motion pending at that moment?

[Richard Brown]

Guest Puzzling, it should not be hard to determine whether a guest is speaking in debate or addressing the assembly to provide information.  It is quite common for guests to be permitted to address an assembly and to present information on some topic.  For example, many boards, especially boards of homeowner associations, permit general members to appear before the board and to speak on various issues at some point in the meeting.  It's the same with public  bodies, such as school boards and city councils that  permit citizens to address the council (or board) at some point during the meeting. That is not participating in debate.  Neither is the speech by the guest speaker at a luncheon or dinner meeting.   I am at a loss as to why you are having difficulty understanding the difference.

[Josh Martin]

32 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

It might have a different name but in practice it might be difficult to distinguish them if not rigorously separated.

In an earlier post 

https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36730-who-can-speak-on-a-motion-that-will-be-presented-do-they-have-to-be-dues-paying-members/?tab=comments#comment-218922

I had the same question and in that situation the guest probably would give a partial opinion over a motion.  

At what point could he be granted permission to give his presentation?  

It can only before the motion is pending or during the debate over the same motion, in RONR there is nothing between the stating of the motion by the chair and the start of the debate if I am correct.

A nonmember can be granted permission to speak by majority vote when no motion is pending or by a 2/3 vote when a motion is pending.

It is correct that there is nothing between the stating of the motion by the chair and the start of the debate.

If the assembly is having a hard time distinguishing between whether a motion is pending, the chair should review RONR (12th ed.) Section 4.

[Joshua Katz]

17 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

That isn't what anyone is saying. If a motion is under consideration, then speaking about the motion is "debate" so the guest would be participating in the debate and a suspension of the rule would be required.

 

I agree. The difficulty is that many organizations that only roughly follow RONR, or follow what they think is RONR, do not have a clear distinction between these two states of affairs.

[Guest Puzzling]

Thanks for all the replies.

Still a bit puzzling about how to get it all in a procedurally proper 

Suppose 

Member A makes a motion. (And the motion is  seconded)

Member B wants to have nonmembers C presentation on this same question.

Is it than correct procedure  that member B raises a "question of privilege of the assembly " to get a vote on if nonmembers C is allowed to speak.

If this is done before the motion is stated by the chair only a majority vote is needed.

If it is done after the motion is stated by the chair a 2/3 vote is needed.

[Atul Kapur]

At that point, if I were the presiding officer, I would rule that it is not a question of privilege urgent enough to interrupt the pending business.

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Suppose 

Member A makes a motion. (And the motion is  seconded)

Member B wants to have nonmembers C presentation on this same question.

Is it than correct procedure  that member B raises a "question of privilege of the assembly " to get a vote on if nonmembers C is allowed to speak.

If this is done before the motion is stated by the chair only a majority vote is needed.

If it is done after the motion is stated by the chair a 2/3 vote is needed.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to call this a "question of privilege" at all (it would require a very expansive view of the phrase "the conduct of its officers and employees, or of visitors"), and in any event I agree with Dr. Kapur that it is not of sufficient urgency to warrant interrupting the existing parliamentary situation.

"Questions of the privileges of the assembly may relate to its organization or existence; to the comfort of its members with respect to heating, ventilation, lighting, and noise or other disturbance; to the conduct of its officers and employees, or of visitors; to the punishment of its members; or to the accuracy of published reports of its proceedings; etc." RONR (12th ed.) 19:7

"Unless the point is simple enough to be promptly adjusted (as in the first example, below) or unless it is in the form of a motion and is not seconded, the chair rules whether the question is a question of privilege, and, if so, whether it is of sufficient urgency to warrant interruption of the existing parliamentary situation. From this ruling an undebatable appeal can be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 19:9

In order to have nonmember C make a presentation on this question with only a majority vote required to permit this, it would seem to me that Member B would need to make the motion to have nonmember C speak prior to Member A actually making a motion on the subject. This is simply an ordinary main motion.

[Guest Puzzling]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

In order to have nonmember C make a presentation on this question with only a majority vote required to permit this, it would seem to me that Member B would need to make the motion to have nonmember C speak prior to Member A actually making a motion on the subject.

But what if member B does not get recognized by the chair before member A? 

[Atul Kapur]

Them's the breaks (aka "You Can't Always Get What You Want")

[Josh Martin]

13 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

But what if member B does not get recognized by the chair before member A? 

Then Member B's motion to permit the presentation will require a motion to Suspend the Rules, which requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

I don't imagine any of this will make much practical difference most of the time, as such matters are often handled by unanimous consent. In the event, however, that a majority feels strongly that Nonmember C should be permitted to make this presentation, but is unable to obtain a 2/3 vote in support for this, then motions such as Postpone to a Certain Time or Lay on the Table could be used to temporarily dispose of the main motion so that it is no longer pending, in which event a main motion to permit Nonmember C to speak will once again be in order and require only a majority vote for adoption.

Edited March 7, 2021 at 05:57 PM by Josh Martin