Reading your Speech

[Eli Zupke]

Does RONR (12th ed.) 43:26 apply to pre-prepared speeches written by the speaking member? Am I allowed to object if someone has pre-written their speech? 

I'm asking because I'm writing a speech in favor of a motion that I plan to make, and I want to know whether I need to ask if any member objects to me reading the speech during debate. 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Eli Zupke said:

Does RONR (12th ed.) 43:26 apply to pre-prepared speeches written by the speaking member? Am I allowed to object if someone has pre-written their speech? 

I'm asking because I'm writing a speech in favor of a motion that I plan to make, and I want to know whether I need to ask if any member objects to me reading the speech during debate. 

I'd first note that a more complete treatment of this subject is found in RONR (12th ed.) 33:20, Request to Read Papers.

My understanding of these rules is that they are not intended to apply to a member's own prepared remarks. The context of the rule refers at various times to reading a quotation or extract from a paper or book as a part of a speech, which suggests to me that the rule is referring to reading from papers other than the speech itself. The discussion on 33:20 also explains more fully the reason why the rule exists, that "This rule is a protection against the use of reading as a means of prolonging debate and delaying business." RONR (12th ed.) 33:20

That is, it is intended to protect against a member padding his speech by reading from various papers. Such a rationale does not seem to apply to the member reading his own prepared remarks. So based on all of the above, I do not think you need to ask if any member objects.

Edited March 13, 2021 at 01:43 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Martin.  I would add that r[R}emarks that are read can often be tedious and boring.  I would suggest preparing an outline as an aid to covering all the important points without actually reading the speech.  Speaking, rather than reading, to the chair will free you up to add the proper inflections to your voice.

N.B.:  In light of the contributions of Mr. Gerber, below, I wish to withdraw my previous opinion that members' speeches in debate may be read verbatim.  My previous opinion is clearly in the wrong, and readers of this topic should take special note of Mr. Gerber's responses.

Edited March 14, 2021 at 05:50 PM by Rob Elsman

[Richard Brown]

I agree with both Messrs Martin and Elsman. The rule prohibiting reading of papers without permission it’s not intended to prevent a member from reading his own speech. I also agree with Mr. Elsman  that a speech made from the heart is usually much more effective than one which is read unless the person reading it is very, very skilled.  If there are statistics that need to be referred to, they can be jotted down on a note card for reference. 

[Eli Zupke]

Thank you all for answering, this has been quite helpful!

[J. J.]

On reading 33:20.  "Any paper" means any paper.  Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.

I would add that having an outline or notes, and not reading them verbatim, would be acceptable. 

[Guest Zev]

I find it curious that by way of interpretation "any paper" (33:20) has been transformed into "some papers."

[Richard Brown]

24 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I find it curious that by way of interpretation "any paper" (33:20) has been transformed into "some papers."

I find it curious that some people interpret the provision as prohibiting a member from reading his own prepared statement in debate.  It's hard for me to imagine a presiding officer or assembly voting to sustain an objection to a member reading his speech rather than making it extemporaneously.  I do not think that is the intent of the provision.

Edited to add:  But, if we are to take the provision literally as to prohibit a member from reading from "any paper", including his  own speech, then by that same rationale If the member puts the speech or other "document" on his  cell phone or tablet and reads from that, he is most definitely not reading from any paper so  reading whatever he wants to read should be just fine.  SMH.

Edited March 13, 2021 at 11:03 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Atul Kapur]

32 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

I find it curious that by way of interpretation "any paper" (33:20) has been transformed into "some papers."

Note that the fuller quote (in both 33:20 and 43:26) is "any paper or book as part of his speech" (emphasis added).

So it is not at all curious that this is being differentiated from writing down and reading his speech. It appears clear that the intent is to prevent reading from work of others without permission.

In several parliaments descending from Westminster (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand) there were Standing Orders or a custom that members not read their speech. The typical defence used by a member accused of doing so was, "I am merely following my notes closely." If, @Eli Zupke, a point of order is raised, you may try that.

[In Canada's Parliament, at least, this discouragement of reading speeches has fallen by the wayside].

[Eli Zupke]

3 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If, @Eli Zupke, a point of order is raised, you may try that.

The speech is in favor of the organization purchasing copies of Robert's Rules for the members (who otherwise do not own them), so unfortunately there is little chance of that. 

[Atul Kapur]

12 minutes ago, Eli Zupke said:

The speech is in favor of the organization purchasing copies of Robert's Rules for the members (who otherwise do not own them), so unfortunately there is little chance of that. 

Then it is highly unlikely that anyone will object that you are reading your speech.

You may want to suggest that the organization purchase copies of RONR In Brief for members rather than (or in addition to) the full book. Much more digestible and likely to be read.

[Eli Zupke]

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

You may want to suggest that the organization purchase copies of RONR In Brief for members rather than (or in addition to) the full book. Much more digestible and likely to be read.

Yes, that is my suggestion. 3 copies of the full rules for President, Parliamentarian, and one as a spare, and then a copy of In Brief for everyone.

Edited March 13, 2021 at 11:46 PM by Eli Zupke
is

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, Eli Zupke said:

. 3 copies of the full rules for President, Parliamentarian, and one as a spare, and then a copy of In Brief for everyone

 

1 hour ago, Eli Zupke said:

The speech is in favor of the organization purchasing copies of Robert's Rules for the members (who otherwise do not own them), s

 

What 🤯 a parliamentarian who does not own his own copy of RONR? 

[Eli Zupke]

47 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

What 🤯 a parliamentarian who does not own his own copy of RONR? 

Well, technically the position is called something else in our organization, and has other duties as well. But yes, they should really have a copy of the rules. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

  

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

My understanding of these rules is that they are not intended to apply to a member's own prepared remarks. The context of the rule refers at various times to reading a quotation or extract from a paper or book as a part of a speech, which suggests to me that the rule is referring to reading from papers other than the speech itself.

 

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

In several parliaments descending from Westminster (e.g. Canada, Australia, New Zealand) there were Standing Orders or a custom that members not read their speech. The typical defence used by a member accused of doing so was, "I am merely following my notes closely." If, @Eli Zupke, a point of order is raised, you may try that.

 

6 hours ago, J. J. said:

On reading 33:20.  "Any paper" means any paper.  Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.

I would add that having an outline or notes, and not reading them verbatim, would be acceptable. 

 

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I find it curious that by way of interpretation "any paper" (33:20) has been transformed into "some papers."

I agree with J. J. and Zev.

It seems clear to me that any reading of papers requires permission of the assembly if any member objects. I think the focus on quotations and extracts is due to those being unobjectionable in most cases — in other words, they are less objectionable than reading entire speeches and should normally cause no reason for an objection.

As Dr. Kapur notes, the English parliamentary tradition is that members do not have the right even to read their own speeches. As stated in Jefferson's Manual: “For the same reason a Member has not a right to read a paper in his place, if it be objected to, without leave of the House. But this rigor is never exercised but where there is an intentional or gross abuse of the time and patience of the House.
A Member has not a right even to read his own speech, committed to writing, without leave. This also is to prevent an abuse of time, and therefore is not refused but where that is intended. 2 Grey, 227.”

And as General Robert noted in Parliamentary Law, Q&A 294: « A speaker does not ask for permission to read, but continues until objection is made. He then stops, and the chair immediately puts the question to the assembly as to whether the article may be read. Permission is never refused, except in case an attempt is made to impose upon the assembly by reading irrelevant matter, or for filibustering purposes. The rule against reading was adopted originally when there was no limit to the length of speeches, and is still the rule in the U. S. Senate and in the British Parliament. It is still necessary to protect the assembly from advantage being taken of the rule allowing each member two speeches of ten minutes each on each question. If members could not be prevented from reading, a minority opposition larger than one third could occupy twenty minutes each in reading papers bearing on the question, or one member could write out a lengthy article on the question to be read by different members, so as to occupy hours. In this way, members who could speak only a few minutes, if confined to their own resources, could consume their full time. The rule is not intended to prevent a member from quoting printed or written articles bearing on the question at issue when used in good faith to strengthen his argument. R. O. R., p. 102, lines 5-7, reads as follows: “It is customary, however, to allow members to read printed extracts as parts of their speeches, as long as they do not abuse the privilege.” »

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I find it curious that some people interpret the provision as prohibiting a member from reading his own prepared statement in debate.  It's hard for me to imagine a presiding officer or assembly voting to sustain an objection to a member reading his speech rather than making it extemporaneously.  I do not think that is the intent of the provision.

Edited to add:  But, if we are to take the provision literally as to prohibit a member from reading from "any paper", including his  own speech, then by that same rationale If the member puts the speech or other "document" on his  cell phone or tablet and reads from that, he is most definitely not reading from any paper so  reading whatever he wants to read should be just fine.  SMH.

Why do you find it curious that people would interpret the provision to mean what it says? True, many times when members read from prepared remarks there is no intent to delay the proceedings and there is no cause for objection. But the rule is the rule. It is not a question of interpreting the words "literally" but rather interpreting what they could reasonably be understood to say. I don't see how the words "read[ing] from any paper" can reasonably be understood to exclude reading from a paper that one has prepared himself or herself for the express purpose of reading from it, as opposed to a paper written by someone else.

As to whether documents recorded on a medium other than paper are included in the rule, that has nothing to do with the question asked; but in any event I think you would agree that they do, and that to suggest otherwise is absurd (which is seemingly why you are suggesting otherwise, as an illustration of absurdity).

The rule refers to "any paper or book" (33:20, 43:26), to "papers or documents" (33:21), and to "Reading from Reports, Quotations, etc." (43:26).

The word "paper" itself can mean "a written or printed document or the like" (dictionary.com) or "any written or printed document or instrument" (Black's Law Dictionary 10th ed.). And the latter defines "writing" as "any intentional recording of words in a visual form, whether in handwriting, printing, typewriting, or any other tangible form that may be viewed or heard with or without mechanical aids".

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Note that the fuller quote (in both 33:20 and 43:26) is "any paper or book as part of his speech" (emphasis added).

So it is not at all curious that this is being differentiated from writing down and reading his speech. It appears clear that the intent is to prevent reading from work of others without permission.

Logically, one's entire speech cannot consist of reading from a paper without part of his speech also consisting of reading from a paper.

Also see Principle of Interpretation #6 in 56:68: "A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are not evidently improper."

[Atul Kapur]

14 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

As Dr. Kapur notes, the English parliamentary tradition is that members do not have the right even to read their own speeches.

I did say that that custom is no longer enforced, at least in Canada.

And I note that General Robert did make the same distinction as I did in his answer in Parliamentary Law between reading the work of others and what members can do "confined to their own resources." 

[Shmuel Gerber]

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

And I note that General Robert did make the same distinction as I did in his answer in Parliamentary Law between reading the work of others and what members can do "confined to their own resources." 

Are you suggesting that the intention of the rule is that members have the right to read from written remarks that they have prepared for themselves, but not those that others have prepared for them? 

[Atul Kapur]

2 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Are you suggesting that the intention of the rule is that members have the right to read from written remarks that they have prepared for themselves, but not those that others have prepared for them? 

Yes, I believe I am.

[Shmuel Gerber]

51 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

56 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Are you suggesting that the intention of the rule is that members have the right to read from written remarks that they have prepared for themselves, but not those that others have prepared for them? 

Yes, I believe I am.

How does that work, exactly?

Member A: Madam President, I object to the speaker's reading from a written paper.

Chair: The chair is uncertain whether the objection is valid and will inquire of the member: did he prepare his own remarks, or did his mommy prepare them for him?

Member B: Madam President, I prepared much of these remarks myself, but I did indeed obtain assistance from certain family members, whom I would prefer not to name …

[Shmuel Gerber]

I think that Jeremy Bentham's views on the subject are interesting:

 

 

Edited March 14, 2021 at 04:33 AM by Shmuel Gerber
Updated second image to include footnote

[Atul Kapur]

14 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think that Jeremy Bentham's views on the subject are interesting:

Ironic that you are doing the forum equivalent of reading a paper. 😉

Edited March 14, 2021 at 06:56 PM by Atul Kapur
Added emoji

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Gerber, I very much appreciate your contribution.  It is excellent and, at least in my mind, dispositive.  Therefore, I am going to edit my previous reply by striking it through and briefly annotating it to make clear that my opinion was clearly in the wrong.  Thank you.