Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Special Rule of Order


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Richard Brown
Typographical correction
Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 😜

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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." 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Puzzling

Maybe

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...