Dilatory: Is intent required?

[Ray Harwood]

As I read RONR (12 Ed) 39, I'm trying to discern what level of intent to be dilatory is required, if any.  In some circumstances, intent may be difficult or impossible to prove or even discern. Merriam Webster includes the word tending in definition 1, and I am wondering if the whole of RONR would prevent the chair from ruling that a whole series of parliamentary forms (RONR 39:4) has become dilatory.

Along with this, I'm reminded of the "often quoted statement" by Henry Robert in Parliamentary Law:

Quote

The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal.

A situation arose where an amendment to the bylaws was being considered, with an imposed 15 minute time limit which was unable to be suspended by Standing Rules.  The majority of the time was taken up with Requests for Information often responded to with lengthy answers that seemed to go beyond simple statements of fact.  Further, the chair permitted one speech against adoption, but seemed powerless to recognize anyone willing to speak for adoption, though numerous attempts at recognition were made.

Would the chair have acted properly to, with say only 5 minutes remaining on the 15 minute clock, to say, "We'll take no further Requests for Information until a member has been afforded the opportunity to speak for adoption"? 

I recognize the chair likely has no obligation to do so.  But if I was the chair and chose to rule in this manner, would it have been improper, given that I could not discern intent to cause delay, but observed the tendency of the numerous inquiries to delay the opposing side the "full, free opportunity to present their side of the case"?

[Josh Martin]

On 9/11/2021 at 5:27 PM, Ray Harwood said:

As I read RONR (12 Ed) 39, I'm trying to discern what level of intent to be dilatory is required, if any.  In some circumstances, intent may be difficult or impossible to prove or even discern. Merriam Webster includes the word tending in definition 1, and I am wondering if the whole of RONR would prevent the chair from ruling that a whole series of parliamentary forms (RONR 39:4) has become dilatory.

Yes, the rule in RONR quite clearly provides that a motion which is otherwise in order is out of order if the member's intent is dilatory. It is not sufficient that the effect of a motion (or series of motions) is dilatory. RONR is quite clear on this subject. As to what "level" of intent is required, RONR does not specify, but RONR does note that a member should be given the benefit of the doubt in this matter.

"A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation." RONR (12th ed.) 39:1

The word "seeks" seems to clearly indicate intent. RONR seems even clearer on this point a few paragraphs further on.

"It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business. Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are repeatedly using parliamentary forms for dilatory purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are not in order - but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker the benefit of the doubt. The chair should always be courteous and fair, but at the same time he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition." RONR (12th ed.) 39:4

Here the words "in good faith" seem to indicate even more clearly that it is the intent which matters. If a motion is made in good faith, it is not dilatory, even although the effect may be to delay business. The rule further provides that the chair should grant members the benefit of the doubt in this matter.

In particular cases, such as in large conventions, it may well be that even motions which are made in good faith will cause a substantial delay in the assembly's business. It is not inconceivable that in an assembly of hundreds, several members may have legitimate requests for information, and this may consume a significant portion of the assembly's limited time. Such assemblies are free to adopt their own rules to address such matters, but the rule against dilatory motions provides no protection in such cases.

On 9/11/2021 at 5:27 PM, Ray Harwood said:

Would the chair have acted properly to, with say only 5 minutes remaining on the 15 minute clock, to say, "We'll take no further Requests for Information until a member has been afforded the opportunity to speak for adoption"? 

No, the chair has no authority to make this determination, at least under the rules in RONR.

On 9/11/2021 at 5:27 PM, Ray Harwood said:

I recognize the chair likely has no obligation to do so.  But if I was the chair and chose to rule in this manner, would it have been improper, given that I could not discern intent to cause delay, but observed the tendency of the numerous inquiries to delay the opposing side the "full, free opportunity to present their side of the case"?

Yes, it would have been improper.

It may well be prudent in such circumstances, however, for the assembly to adopt rules on this matter. A few ideas come to mind, if this is becoming an issue for the assembly:

1) As you suggest, the assembly may adopt rules which grant speeches in debate preference in recognition over Requests for Information, at least in certain circumstances.

2) The assembly could adopt rules which limit the number of Requests for Information which may be raised, the time afforded to the requests (or responses), or other such limitations.

3) The assembly could adopt rules requiring that Requests for Information be made privately, to some person(s) assigned for this purpose, and that the responses be made privately. The rule could provide that the chair could, in the chair's discretion, share the answer with the full assembly. Alternately, the person who receives the response could share the information in debate, although it would be necessary for the member to obtain recognition to do so.

I am sure there are other solutions. I believe I am familiar with the organization you refer to, and I don't believe this is a new problem for this organization's conventions, so the organization may wish to experiment with solutions to this problem at future conventions.

Edited September 11, 2021 at 11:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/11/2021 at 6:27 PM, Ray Harwood said:

A situation arose where an amendment to the bylaws was being considered, with an imposed 15 minute time limit which was unable to be suspended by Standing Rules.  The majority of the time was taken up with Requests for Information often responded to with lengthy answers that seemed to go beyond simple statements of fact.  Further, the chair permitted one speech against adoption, but seemed powerless to recognize anyone willing to speak for adoption, though numerous attempts at recognition were made.

Would the chair have acted properly to, with say only 5 minutes remaining on the 15 minute clock, to say, "We'll take no further Requests for Information until a member has been afforded the opportunity to speak for adoption"? 

 

On 9/11/2021 at 7:00 PM, Josh Martin said:

I believe I am familiar with the organization you refer to, and I don't believe this is a new problem for this organization's conventions, so the organization may wish to experiment with solutions to this problem at future conventions.

Well, they could start by following the rules in RONR.

The rule is that requests for information "are in order when another has the floor if they require immediate attention" (12th ed. 33:2(3), my emphasis)

Further, "there are a number of purposes for which a member who has been assigned the floor may be interrupted (see 42:18–19). A member who sought the floor for such a purpose before the floor has been assigned is likewise entitled to preference in recognition." (42:7)

These include "a request or inquiry (32, 33) that requires an immediate response" (42:18(e), my emphasis)

The upshot is that there is no reason to consider most requests for information as "interrupting motions". Members with requests that do not require an immediate response should be required to obtain the floor in the normal manner and should not be given priority over members seeking the floor for other purposes.

[Rob Elsman]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:56 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The upshot is that there is no reason to consider most requests for information as "interrupting motions".

I think this is arguable.  In some societies, it is a regular feature of debate that members of the opposing side will interrupt the speaker in debate to make a Request for Information.  Although the request is stated in the form of a question, its real purpose is to make a point or refute what the speaker has just said.  The speaker's response to the "request" is in the nature of a rebuttal or cross rebuttal.

The speaker's ability to persuasively parry these "requests" can actually strengthen the effectiveness of his speech.  On the other hand, his inability can embarrassingly show him up as unprepared, unpersuasive, or befuddled.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/11/2021 at 9:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

On 9/11/2021 at 8:56 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The upshot is that there is no reason to consider most requests for information as "interrupting motions".

I think this is arguable.  In some societies, it is a regular feature of debate that members of the opposing side will interrupt the speaker in debate to make a Request for Information.  Although the request is stated in the form of a question, its real purpose is to make a point or refute what the speaker has just said.  The speaker's response to the "request" is in the nature of a rebuttal or cross rebuttal.

The speaker's ability to persuasively parry these "requests" can actually strengthen the effectiveness of his speech.  On the other hand, his inability can embarrassingly show him up as unprepared, unpersuasive, or befuddled.

I take it that what you find arguable is whether "most" requests for information are in the nature of requests that may interrupt a speaker or that entitle the maker of the request to preference in recognition. I have no statistical data on the overall frequency of the different types of requests made in different organizations. I am simply saying that I see nothing in RONR that gives preference in recognition to a member who has a question that needs no immediate answer over a member who wishes to speak in debate.

Obviously, asking a question of the member speaking for him to answer during his allotted time in debate can only be done during that time, and therefore does require an immediate response — although the member has the choice of whether or not to allow the interruption or to respond.

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/11/2021 at 8:56 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The upshot is that there is no reason to consider most requests for information as "interrupting motions". Members with requests that do not require an immediate response should be required to obtain the floor in the normal manner and should not be given priority over members seeking the floor for other purposes.

Okay, but how does the presiding officer determine whether the request requires an immediate response (and therefore, the questioner should be given preference in recognition) before hearing what the request is? 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/12/2021 at 12:13 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Okay, but how does the presiding officer determine whether the request requires an immediate response (and therefore, the questioner should be given preference in recognition) before hearing what the request is? 

The chair should remind the members what the rules are, and then they have the responsibility to follow them. The chair only needs to make such a determination in questionable cases or when the rules have been breached.

If a member misuses the opportunity to obtain priority in recognition in order to ask a question that does not require an immediate response, the chair could say, "In the opinion of the chair, this question does not require an immediate response. The chair reminds the members that requests for information entitle the member to preference in recognition only in cases where an immediate response is required. The member will please seek the floor in the normal manner the next time the floor is yielded. The chair recognizes Mr. X (the person who would have otherwise been granted recognition if not for the interruption)."

[Josh Martin]

On 9/11/2021 at 7:56 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well, they could start by following the rules in RONR.

The rule is that requests for information "are in order when another has the floor if they require immediate attention" (12th ed. 33:2(3), my emphasis)

Further, "there are a number of purposes for which a member who has been assigned the floor may be interrupted (see 42:18–19). A member who sought the floor for such a purpose before the floor has been assigned is likewise entitled to preference in recognition." (42:7)

These include "a request or inquiry (32, 33) that requires an immediate response" (42:18(e), my emphasis)

The upshot is that there is no reason to consider most requests for information as "interrupting motions". Members with requests that do not require an immediate response should be required to obtain the floor in the normal manner and should not be given priority over members seeking the floor for other purposes.

Thank you. I agree with these clarifications. I still am not entirely certain that this, in and of itself, would fully resolve the issue, but it would be a start.

[Ray Harwood]

Thanks to you all -- great advice, and helped me come to grips with my first such convention.

I started with Robert's Rules at the age of 14 in 1968, a brief need again in the 1999-2001 timeframe on a small board for a PMI chapter.  When I decided to join my HOA board in 2017, I figured it was time to get serious and joined the Arizona Agua Fria Unit, of which Al Gage is a member. Now I'm 67 and finally starting to learn the rules!

Thanks again for being here.
Ray