How to cut off discussion between recognition and making of a main motion

[Neil Hodge]

After searching this forum, I have seen numerous references on this topic to 4:8, and that seems sensible.  That being said, we have a member who will be recognized by the chair in the usual manner, but then go on a multi-topic diatribe for 5-8 minutes, before making a motion . . .  So, my question is: What is the right procedure for the chair to stop this if no other member offers a point of order?  Thanks.

[Atul Kapur]

The chair calls the member to order and requires the member to make a motion. This is very similar to how the chair would respond if a member raised point of order (with the introductory sentence: "The member's point is well taken.")

Why is no member raising a point of order?

Edited November 5, 2022 at 06:32 PM by Atul Kapur
Completing a sentence and closing a parenthesis

[Rob Elsman]

Any member, including the chair, can interrupt the "diatribe" and raise a Point of Order that the person who has been assigned the floor is making a speech in debate without a motion being pending and beyond the purpose for which the floor was assigned.

[Neil Hodge]

@Atul Kapur, @Rob Elsman

Beautiful, thanks!!

 

@Atul Kapur

Quote

Why is no member raising a point of order?

Uhhh . . .  Well, this board has been (read, "is") hopelessly informal.  I am working on fixing that, but I don't have any experience or formal training, just the books, so if I read long enough and can't find the answer, I am relegated to asking . . .  I have found every answer up until this one.  <shrug>

 

Anyway, thanks again Atul and Rob.

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/5/2022 at 2:11 PM, Neil Hodge said:

Well, this board has been (read, "is") hopelessly informal.  I am working on fixing that

You may find that they are comfortable with this informality and may resist attempts to introduce "unnecessary" rules and formality. So you may have to do some convincing as to the benefits, for example, shorter meetings.

[Rob Elsman]

In a small board, informal discussion when no motion is pending is permitted, RONR (12th ed.) 49:12, item (4); likewise, the ordinary limit on the number of speeches in debate that would apply in larger bodies does not apply, item (3).

[Neil Hodge]

On 11/5/2022 at 11:35 AM, Atul Kapur said:

You may find that they are comfortable with this informality and may resist attempts to introduce "unnecessary" rules and formality. So you may have to do some convincing as to the benefits, for example, shorter meetings.

Atul:

The diatriber will resist, but the remainder have told me that they all want more order.  I am ready to take an incremental approach, including socialization efforts with the wider organization.

Neil

Edited November 5, 2022 at 07:07 PM by Neil Hodge

[Neil Hodge]

On 11/5/2022 at 11:44 AM, Rob Elsman said:

In a small board, informal discussion when no motion is pending is permitted, RONR (12th ed.) 49:12, item (4); likewise, the ordinary limit on the number of speeches in debate that would apply in larger bodies does not apply, item (3).

Rob:

Yes, I saw those items . . .  I will note that the remainder of the board is very interested in more order, but I have already been thinking about what the right balance is between our size (which would imply less formality) and the chaos at our meetings of late (which would imply more formality).  I think this is something I will have to experiment with, but certainly our current complete lack of formality is not serving us well.

Neil

 

[Rob Elsman]

If the relaxed rules for small boards are not working well for this particular board, one option is for the board to explicitly adopt the rules that would pertain to larger assemblies.  The increased formality will put an end to our "diatriber" [?] going on and on for five to eight minutes before making a motion, as you say.  It is still possible for the meetings to be warm and welcoming, even with an increase in the formality of the proceedings.

If the board decides to go down this path, it should make sure that the members are properly educated in the rules that pertain to larger assemblies--maybe a "bootcamp" would be appropriate.

[Neil Hodge]

Rob:

I have wondered about the notion of making sure that all of the board members are on the same page in this regard.  Several of the board members have experience with more formal meeting procedures, but not all . . .  A bootcamp seems like a good idea.  I kindof imagine a one day training from someone with significant experience, and maybe the right question is "how would one go about finding a proper parliamentarian (or maybe just someone with significant experience with RO) to give a one day training?".

Thanks!!

Neil

 

[Josh Martin]

On 11/6/2022 at 9:45 AM, Neil Hodge said:

I have wondered about the notion of making sure that all of the board members are on the same page in this regard.  Several of the board members have experience with more formal meeting procedures, but not all . . .  A bootcamp seems like a good idea.  I kindof imagine a one day training from someone with significant experience, and maybe the right question is "how would one go about finding a proper parliamentarian (or maybe just someone with significant experience with RO) to give a one day training?".

Both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians can assist your organization in finding a professional parliamentarian.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/5/2022 at 2:11 PM, Neil Hodge said:

so if I read long enough and can't find the answer, I am relegated to asking .

Which is why we're here.  Good luck—let us know how it went.