Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Introducing discussion topic


Guest Georgia

Recommended Posts

At our upcoming annual meeting, a group is planning on bringing up several area of concern about the way the organization is currently governed.  These do not fall into the area of bylaws violations, just some very questionable decisions being made, lack of communication, etc.  Our standing rules say that for discussion, each person has 3 minutes to speak, with 30 minutes total time allotted.   Does this 3 minutes apply to the person who introduces the topic?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the sense that I think you mean it, there is no such thing as a "discussion topic" in RONR (12th ed.).  Debate on a specific proposal follows the making of a motion, a second, and the stating of the question by the chair.  Debate must be germane to the motion.  There is no "pie in the sky" "discussion".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

In the sense that I think you mean it, there is no such thing as a "discussion topic" in RONR (12th ed.).  Debate on a specific proposal follows the making of a motion, a second, and the stating of the question by the chair.  Debate must be germane to the motion.  There is no "pie in the sky" "discussion".

Well, that is the general rule, but it is not entirely accurate.  RONR specifically provides in §41:34 for a general discussion period called "Good of the Order", "General Good and Welfare", or "Open Forum", etc, for discussion of items of interest without being limited to debate on a pending motion. I believe the assembly could enter into such a discussion period by majority vote (or unanimous consent) and certainly by suspending the rules. 

Here is the text of 41:34:

"Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here.

Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting (63) at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order.

Edited to add:  I believe sections 4:8 and 43:22 33:22 also seem to permit the assembly to engage in a period of discussion when no motion is pending.

 

Edited by Richard Brown
Typographical corrections and added last paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Brown, I rather doubt that the Good of the Order is what the original poster means.  I think Guest Georgia means that the "discussion topic" will be taken up during the period of time when business is regularly transacted.  When I say there is no "pie in the sky" "discussion" topic, I mean that the transaction of business normally implies that a main motion be pending.  The main motion must propose doing something.  Debate centers around the advisability of doing what the main motion proposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Brown, I rather doubt that the Good of the Order is what the original poster means.  I think Guest Georgia means that the "discussion topic" will be taken up during the period of time when business is regularly transacted. 

And I am suggesting that RONR provides a method (actually several methods) of accomplishing that goal.   I see nothing to prevent the assembly from entering into a period of discussion on a particular topic as provided in Sections 4:8 and 33:22.  To the contrary, RONR specifically permits it.

Note:  In my earlier post I referred to §43:22 rather than to 33:22.  I have just corrected that error.

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph
Link to comment
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...