Managing Debate in a Deliberative Assembly Without a Parliamentarian

[shaneweaver]

Looking for clarification managing a deliberative assembly that requires a parliamentarian but currently cannot fill the position.  In particular, we are in need of defining what constitutes 'debate'.  When a main motion is on the floor, what kind of remarks are considered 'debate'?  Is any member seeking the floor in regards to anything that is not a higher order motion 'debate'?  Robert's Rules online (Art. VII. Debate. 42 Debate) states that in regards to an amendment, asking a question or making a suggestion does not constitute speaking, however, it offers no clarification on main motions.

Further, in a deliberative assembly that has a formalized position for a parliamentarian but currently does not have the position filled, who is to be the interim parliamentarian?  Is the Chair to assume the position or are they to assign a member of the assembly to temporarily assume that position?  If a member of the assembly acts as interim parliamentarian, do they maintain voting and motioning privileges?

Lastly, is the Chair within their right to expel or silence non-members of the assembly when the meeting is open to the public?  Does that right extend if the Chair is seeking to expel non-members if those individuals are members of the organization as a whole but not of the assembly?  E.g. President of the organization who is not a member of the assembly nor has voting, motioning, or speaking rights within the assembly.  Robert's Rules of Order (12th) 9:29, 61:6-8, 61:19-20 have offered some help in regards to this.

Please take into consideration that members of the assembly are not well versed in parliamentary procedure as this is a student run organization.  The most well versed individuals are the current Chair and Vice-Chair.

[Rob Elsman]

Debate is the discussion on the merits of the pending question--that is, whether or not it is advisable to adopt the pending question based on the question's merits.  RONR (12th ed.) 43:1.

All remarks in debate must be germane--that is, they must have a bearing on the merits of the pending question.  RONR (12th ed.) 43:20.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/30/2021 at 7:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

When a main motion is on the floor, what kind of remarks are considered 'debate'?  Is any member seeking the floor in regards to anything that is not a higher order motion 'debate'?  Robert's Rules online (Art. VII. Debate. 42 Debate) states that in regards to an amendment, asking a question or making a suggestion does not constitute speaking, however, it offers no clarification on main motions.

If a member merely asks a question and says nothing else, that is not speaking in debate. That is a Request for Information or a Parliamentary Inquiry, depending on what the question is regarding.

A suggestion is debate. I believe the rule you are referring to is outdated. The text you are reading is from 1915, and is publicly available online because it is so old that it is in the public domain.

These rules are applicable regardless of the type of debatable motion which is pending.

So as you suggest, it is essentially correct that "any member seeking the floor in regards to anything that is not a higher order motion [is] 'debate'." There is a specific motion (two of them, actually) used for asking questions.

On 9/30/2021 at 7:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

Further, in a deliberative assembly that has a formalized position for a parliamentarian but currently does not have the position filled, who is to be the interim parliamentarian?  Is the Chair to assume the position or are they to assign a member of the assembly to temporarily assume that position?

The parliamentarian's role is to advise the chair on parliamentary procedure, so it would be rather silly for the chair to appoint themselves. This would be equivalent to leaving the position vacant - which is certainly an option. Alternately, the chair could appoint some other person. The parliamentarian does not need to be a member of the assembly unless the organization's rules so provide, which is not advisable.

The chair also has the option of asking an "experienced member" for advice rather than formally appointing a parliamentarian. See RONR (12th ed.) 23:17

On 9/30/2021 at 7:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

If a member of the assembly acts as interim parliamentarian, do they maintain voting and motioning privileges?

A member of the assembly who serves as its parliamentarian (interim or otherwise) maintains their rights as a member to make motions, speak in debate, and vote, but is expected to refrain from exercising those rights (with the exception of voting in a vote by ballot) in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality. See RONR (12th ed.) 47:55

On 9/30/2021 at 7:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

Lastly, is the Chair within their right to expel or silence non-members of the assembly when the meeting is open to the public?

Yes, subject to appeal.

On 9/30/2021 at 7:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

Does that right extend if the Chair is seeking to expel non-members if those individuals are members of the organization as a whole but not of the assembly?

Yes.

Edited October 1, 2021 at 07:29 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/30/2021 at 8:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

Lastly, is the Chair within their right to expel or silence non-members of the assembly when the meeting is open to the public?

 

On 10/1/2021 at 9:52 AM, Josh Martin said:

Yes, subject to appeal.

Just to clarify that the appeal would have to come from a member of the assembly. The non-member who is being expelled or silenced has no rights at the meeting, so that person (or any other non-member) cannot appeal.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/1/2021 at 9:52 AM, Josh Martin said:

On 9/30/2021 at 8:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

Lastly, is the Chair within their right to expel or silence non-members of the assembly when the meeting is open to the public?

Yes, subject to appeal.

It may be worth noting that the silenced or expelled non-member has no right to raise an appeal.  Any appeal to the chair's decision would have to come from a voting member of the assembly.

[Atul Kapur]

Apparently it's not just worth noting, but worth repeating.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/30/2021 at 8:45 PM, shaneweaver said:

Robert's Rules online (Art. VII. Debate. 42 Debate) states that in regards to an amendment, asking a question or making a suggestion does not constitute speaking, however, it offers no clarification on main motions.

The rule referred to is not about amendment; it is simply jammed into a long paragraph that also speaks about amendments.

On 10/1/2021 at 9:52 AM, Josh Martin said:

A suggestion is debate. I believe the rule you are referring to is outdated. The text you are reading is from 1915, and is publicly available online because it is so old that it is in the public domain.

But RONR (12th edition) says something similar, but in the context of an undebatable motion or no motion being pending:

43:32    "The distinction between debate and asking questions or making brief suggestions should be kept in mind in this connection. Especially in large assemblies, the chair must be careful not to allow this type of consultation to develop into an extended colloquy between members or to take on the semblance of debate, and should generally remain standing while the consultation takes place, to show that the floor has not been assigned."

It seems to me quite possible for a member to make a suggestion while a debatable motion is immediately pending that shouldn't necessarily be counted as a speech in debate. For example, if a member has already spoken twice in debate, I think he could still obtain the floor for the purpose of making a suggestion such as: "I would suggest that members refrain from offering amendments to paragraph B until there has been ample opportunity to amend paragraph A."

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/1/2021 at 8:52 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Apparently it's not just worth noting, but worth repeating.

The two were virtually simultaneous.  Not so much an echo as a reverb.

[Atul Kapur]

On 10/1/2021 at 11:09 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

 

 

On 10/1/2021 at 5:56 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

 

 

On 10/2/2021 at 10:42 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The two were virtually simultaneous.

I am not sure whether 6 hours and 47 minutes is stretching the definition of "virtually" or "simultaneous"

[shaneweaver]

Thank you for everyone's contributions!  Many of the points raised in this thread have been included in a lengthy write-up that explains many of these concepts in simple terms so every member of the assembly will have a better understanding of the duties and privileges of the chairman as well as their privileges in situations such as debate.  This will be an ongoing project of mine that will be updated over time as more complicated situations arise.  My hope to ensure order is maintained and the members of the assembly are aware of how decisions are made by the chair and how the rules will be enforced.  I'm exponentially grateful for the existence of this forum and I look forward to discussing more about Robert's Rules and updates with our assembly.

Thank You:

Rob Elsman

Josh Martin

Atul Kapur

Gary Novosielski

Shmuel Gerber

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/3/2021 at 5:46 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

 

I am not sure whether 6 hours and 47 minutes is stretching the definition of "virtually" or "simultaneous"

That is not how it appeared to me when I looked.  But it could have been the hard cider talking.  In any case, it is apparent that we agreed, so file it under: No Harm No Foul.  🥴

Edited October 5, 2021 at 12:06 AM by Gary Novosielski