individual rights vs a 2/3 vote

[Guest paulc6@live.com]

To close debate we have members on the side of individual rights as described in 1:4 and 25:11 and others favoring remove rights by a 2/3 vote as described in 4:32 and xlix. These examples provide opposite interpretations. Which to use if we are amending our bylaws? Both rules cannot be correct. Paul

[George Mervosh]

On 11/30/2021 at 11:29 AM, Guest paulc6@live.com said:

To close debate we have members on the side of individual rights as described in 1:4 and 25:11 and others favoring remove rights by a 2/3 vote as described in 4:32 and xlix. These examples provide opposite interpretations. Which to use if we are amending our bylaws? Both rules cannot be correct. Paul

A motion for the previous question requires a 2/3 vote, Paul.  See RONR (12th ed.), 16:5 (7).  But you know all of this.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, at least we know that Paul is keeping up to date with the latest edition of RONR. 🙂

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/30/2021 at 11:29 AM, Guest paulc6@live.com said:

To close debate we have members on the side of individual rights as described in 1:4 and 25:11

25:11 explains both "sides":

"Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended. Thus, while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question, the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote." (emphasis added)

[Josh Martin]

On 11/30/2021 at 10:29 AM, Guest paulc6@live.com said:

To close debate we have members on the side of individual rights as described in 1:4 and 25:11 and others favoring remove rights by a 2/3 vote as described in 4:32 and xlix. These examples provide opposite interpretations. Both rules cannot be correct. 

I don't think they provide opposite interpretations unless you read some of them very selectively.

The statements in question provide:

"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings." RONR (12th ed.) 1:4

"The presiding officer cannot close debate so long as any member who has not exhausted his right to debate desires the floor, except by order of the assembly, which requires a two-thirds vote (15, 16, 43)." RONR (12th ed.) 4:32

"Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended. Thus, while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question, the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote. These basic rights may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings." RONR (12th ed.) 25:11

If one pretends that the rule in 25:11 ends after the first sentence and pretends that the word "individually" does not exist in 1:4, then I suppose I could see how these rules could be viewed as in conflict, but if they are read in their entirety (and especially if you read all of them) the meaning seems clear. If additional assistance is needed in this regard, this rule also seems helpful in this matter if the rules are still viewed as conflicting:

"In reading all that follows throughout this manual, it should be borne in mind that—as in any treatment of any subject—a statement of a rule generally cannot include all possible exceptions to the rule. Whenever a particular statement appears to conflict with a more general statement elsewhere in the book, therefore, the particular statement governs in the matter to which it states that it applies (see also 56:68(3))." RONR (12th ed.) 3:2

On 11/30/2021 at 10:29 AM, Guest paulc6@live.com said:

Which to use if we are amending our bylaws?

I am not certain what is meant by this. If the question is what rule(s) should be followed for ending debate during a debate over a bylaw amendment, then all of them are followed as they are in perfect harmony with each other. The rules may not be suspended so as to provide "John Smith shall no longer speak in debate" while permitting other members to continue speaking. The rules do, however, permit adopting a motion to end debate for all members, but this requires a 2/3 vote since it limits the rights of the majority. These rules are to be followed for bylaw amendments and for other debatable motions.

If the question is what rule the society should use in its bylaws, that is a question for the society to determine. The society's bylaws take precedence over RONR, and it may adopt whatever rules in the bylaws that it sees fit.

As I understand it, you have suggested in the past that your society wishes to follow a rule which provides that the Previous Question may not be adopted if any member who has not yet spoken still wishes to speak, except by unanimous consent. The society is free to adopt such a rule if it wishes to do so.

Edited November 30, 2021 at 10:48 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest PAUL]

Thanks Mr Martin. We will place in our bylaws each member may speak twice for up to up to 5 mins each time. And stay away from cutting off debate until everyone who wishes to speak has spoken. That way we won't have to argue about interpretations. Regards, Paul

[Richard Brown]

On 12/8/2021 at 7:37 PM, Guest PAUL said:

Thanks Mr Martin. We will place in our bylaws each member may speak twice for up to up to 5 mins each time. And stay away from cutting off debate until everyone who wishes to speak has spoken. That way we won't have to argue about interpretations. Regards, Paul

I'm afraid that if you put that in your bylaws and RONR is your parliamentary authority, the assembly, per the rules in RONR regarding The Previous Question, can still end debate with a two thirds vote using the motion for the previous question.  It seems to me that all your proposed rule will do is change the ten minutes per speech rule in RONR to five minutes per speech.  If you want to eliminate the right of the assembly to end debate by means of a motion for the previous question, you will have to affirmatively say so.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/8/2021 at 9:04 PM, Richard Brown said:

If you want to eliminate the right of the assembly to end debate by means of a motion for the previous question, you will have to affirmatively say so.

Couldn't any such rule still be suspended by a two-thirds vote? Grated, the assembly may be less likely to suspend the rule and order the previous question that they would be to order the previous question if there is no rule against doing so. But I believe they could do it.

[Richard Brown]

On 12/8/2021 at 10:42 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Couldn't any such rule still be suspended by a two-thirds vote? Grated, the assembly may be less likely to suspend the rule and order the previous question that they would be to order the previous question if there is no rule against doing so. But I believe they could do it.

Yes, I think you are right:  A rule in the bylaws which prohibits using the motion "The  Previous Question" to end debate would be a rule in the nature of a rule of order and could probably be suspended unless the bylaw provision itself says it may not be suspended.

[Atul Kapur]

Not that I think it's a good idea, but Guest PAUL's wording would work. He is not prohibiting the previous question, he is going further:

On 12/8/2021 at 8:37 PM, Guest PAUL said:

And stay away from cutting off debate until everyone who wishes to speak has spoken.

This would be a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order that protects  a minority of any one person who wishes to speak. It would take unanimous consent to suspend it. RONR (12th ed.) 25:2(7)

[Richard Brown]

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

Not that I think it's a good idea, but Guest PAUL's wording would work. He is not prohibiting the previous question, he is going further:

 

On 12/8/2021 at 7:37 PM, Guest PAUL said:

And stay away from cutting off debate until everyone who wishes to speak has spoken.

Perhaps I’m not interpreting Guest Paul’s comment correctly, but I read it to mean that he is not going to say anything in the bylaws about cutting off debate. If that’s what he is doing, then in essence he is only shortening the length of each speech from ten minutes to five minutes. he hasn’t specified what if any language he would insert to prohibit limiting debate.
 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/8/2021 at 10:04 PM, Richard Brown said:

I'm afraid that if you put that in your bylaws and RONR is your parliamentary authority, the assembly, per the rules in RONR regarding The Previous Question, can still end debate with a two thirds vote using the motion for the previous question.  It seems to me that all your proposed rule will do is change the ten minutes per speech rule in RONR to five minutes per speech.  If you want to eliminate the right of the assembly to end debate by means of a motion for the previous question, you will have to affirmatively say so.

It depends on exactly what the rule says. We are provided only a paraphrase of the rule.

The rule could be worded (as I suggested) as providing that "the Previous Question may not be adopted if any member who has not yet spoken still wishes to speak, except by unanimous consent." Such a rule would protect a minority of one member, and could be suspended only by unanimous consent. (To clarify, I do not advise adopting such a rule. But if a society wishes to adopt such a rule, this is the wording I would suggest.) Such a wording may be what Paul was suggesting when he said "And stay away from cutting off debate until everyone who wishes to speak has spoken."

I am in agreement that if the bylaws simply say "each member may speak twice for up to up to 5 mins each time," this doesn't do anything in regard to the assembly's ability to adopt the Previous Question.

Edited December 9, 2021 at 05:03 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/9/2021 at 12:02 PM, Josh Martin said:

I am in agreement that if the bylaws simply say "each member may speak twice for [up to] 5 mins each time," this doesn't do anything in regard to the assembly's ability to adopt the Previous Question.

I think this part of the question is interesting. Ordering the previous question prevents each member from speaking twice for up to 5 minutes each time. If the bylaws have this rule, how do you know that closing debate is still permitted? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/9/2021 at 12:29 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think this part of the question is interesting. Ordering the previous question prevents each member from speaking twice for up to 5 minutes each time. If the bylaws have this rule, how do you know that closing debate is still permitted? 

Because RONR's ten-minute rule still permits closing debate?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/9/2021 at 12:47 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Because RONR's ten-minute rule still permits closing debate?

But the rules in RONR are all at the same rank, so it must be possible for all of them to apply. Rules in the bylaws supersede those in the parliamentary authority, so I think it is not unreasonable to think that a rule in the bylaws permitting members to speak a certain number of times and for a certain length supersedes a rule in the parliamentary authority allowing debate to be closed at any time.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/9/2021 at 11:58 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But the rules in RONR are all at the same rank, so it must be possible for all of them to apply. Rules in the bylaws supersede those in the parliamentary authority, so I think it is not unreasonable to think that a rule in the bylaws permitting members to speak a certain number of times and for a certain length supersedes a rule in the parliamentary authority allowing debate to be closed at any time.

But would it prevent the adoption of a motion to Suspend the Rules and order the Previous Question?

I would think the answer is "no," but even if the answer is "maybe," it would seem desirable for the rule to specifically provide for a higher vote threshold to order the Previous Question, in order for the rule to really have teeth.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/9/2021 at 1:01 PM, Josh Martin said:

But would it prevent the adoption of a motion to Suspend the Rules and order the Previous Question?

I would think the answer is "no," but even if the answer is "maybe," it would seem desirable for the rule to specifically provide for a higher vote threshold to order the Previous Question, in order for the rule to really have teeth.

It seems to me that if a rule does indeed prevent closing debate, it would apply equally to doing so by ordering the previous question or suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote.