Special Rule of Order

[Guest whattahw]

What is the proper form (use of language), function (action in language), and format (order of language) to successfully write a Special Rule of Order for a small organization?

Note: It is assumed it will not conflict with any current organizational rules.

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

There's no particular magic formula for how to write one.  What do you want the rule to do?

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with Alicia Percell, it is really quite simple. Here is an example: “special rule of order # 4: Each speech in debate shall be limited to three minutes” Or, “ A member Who speaks in debate is not permitted to move the previous question as part of his speech or at the conclusion of his speech“.

There is no need to get fancy.

Edited May 14, 2021 at 09:04 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/14/2021 at 5:03 AM, Richard Brown said:

Agreeing with Alicia Percell, it is really quite simple. Here is an example: “special rule of order # 4: Each speech in debate shall be limited to three minutes” Or, “ A member Who speaks in debate is not permitted to move the previous question as part of his speech or at the conclusion of his speech“.

There is no need to get fancy.

Wouldn't that second example make it impossible ever to move the Previous Question?

[Weldon Merritt]

43 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Wouldn't that second example make it impossible ever to move the Previous Question?

No. It would prevent the member from speaking in debate and concluding with a motion for the Previous Question. But it would not prevent the members from moving the Previous Question immediately on being recognized.  

[Gary Novosielski]

20 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

No. It would prevent the member from speaking in debate and concluding with a motion for the Previous Question. But it would not prevent the members from moving the Previous Question immediately on being recognized.  

I know that was the intent, but I think it could be argued that it would constitute "a part of his speech", i.e., the first part.

I've seen thinner arguments than that eat up a half hour of a meeting. 😜

 

[Weldon Merritt]

16 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I know that was the intent, but I think it could be argued that it would constitute "a part of his speech", i.e., the first part.

I've seen thinner arguments than that eat up a half hour of a meeting. 😜

 

But then it wouldn't be "at the conclusion of his speech." It would make just as much sense (very little IMO) to argue that the first part of Mr. Brown's example would prevent moving the Previous Question at all. If the intent were to prevent PQ entirely, the rule would need to say something like, "A motion for the Previous Question shall not be allowed." 

[Dan Honemann]

7 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

But then it wouldn't be "at the conclusion of his speech." It would make just as much sense (very little IMO) to argue that the first part of Mr. Brown's example would prevent moving the Previous Question at all. If the intent were to prevent PQ entirely, the rule would need to say something like, "A motion for the Previous Question shall not be allowed." 

The proposed special rule is: “ A member Who speaks in debate is not permitted to move the previous question as part of his speech or at the conclusion of his speech“.

Is it possible for a member to move the previous question as part of his speech without moving the previous question at the conclusion of his speech?

 

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Is it possible for a member to move the previous question as part of his speech without moving the previous question at the conclusion of his speech?

I suppose not. But I wasn't the author of the special rule in question. I think a better wording would be, "A member may not conclude his debate by moving the previous question."

[Guest Puzzling]

Maybe

"Only members who have not participated  in a debate may move a motion to end debate (previous question) .  "

[Atul Kapur]

I am not sure if it is intended, but Guest Puzzling's version would prevent anyone who has previously spoken from rising to seek recognition a second time in order to move the previous question. Mr. Brown's wording would allow that. 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Kapur’s comments above. I also agree that Mr. Merritt’s  version of my suggested special rule of order is perhaps worded better  than my original version. The intent is to prohibit a member from making a speech and then concluding his speech by moving the previous question.