Length of time speaking

[Guest Smmastiff]

So a member quoted a section of Robert's rules saying that speakers were allowed to speak for 10 minutes. I'm thinking that this cannot be true as a meeting would be very limited in the number of people who could speak on the subject. Question is is this true? Does Robert's rule allow each speaker 10 minutes.

I could not find reference to this and Robert's rules

[Joshua Katz]

Yes, a member may speak twice on a matter, for 10 minutes each. That doesn't mean they need to speak for the full 10 minutes, of course. And, unlike in many legislative rules, they may not "yield" that time to someone else. If you get up and speak for 1 minute, and sit down, you've used your 10 minute speech, you haven't saved 9 minutes for later use or for someone else.

I don't see why it's limited in the number of people who could speak on the subject. Can you give more details on the situation?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/23/2023 at 3:56 PM, Guest Smmastiff said:

I could not find reference to this and Robert's rules

From the Index, RONR 12th edition:

length of speeches, 4:29, 6:5(5), 43:8
limits of, modifying (see also Limit or Extend Limits of Debate), 43:14–18

Of course if ten minutes seems excessive, your organization is free to adopt a Special Rule of Order limiting the length or number of speeches as a general rule.   If a particular matter comes up that needs more (or less) time, there is always the motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate.  

Also, the chair should be mindful of how debate is progressing.  It is recommended that the chair try as much as possible to alternately recognize supporting and opposing member in debate.  If the chair finds that all the members seeking recognition seem to be on the same side of the issue, or debate is getting repetitious and nobody seems inclined to move the Previous Question,  the chair is within rights to suggest that it might be time to put the question.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/23/2023 at 2:56 PM, Guest Smmastiff said:

So a member quoted a section of Robert's rules saying that speakers were allowed to speak for 10 minutes. I'm thinking that this cannot be true as a meeting would be very limited in the number of people who could speak on the subject. Question is is this true? Does Robert's rule allow each speaker 10 minutes.

Yes, this is correct.

But if ten minutes is too long for your organization, it is free to adopt its own rule on this matter. Many organizations adopt their own rules on this subject providing for a shorter limit.

I would also note, however, that just because speakers can speak for ten minutes does not mean every speaker will do so, so the consequences of permitting up to ten minutes per speech may not be quite as dire as you imagine.

"In a nonlegislative body or organization that has no special rule relating to the length of speeches (2), a member, having obtained the floor while a debatable motion is immediately pending, can speak no longer than ten minutes unless he obtains the consent of the assembly. Such permission can be given by unanimous consent (4:58–63), or by means of a motion to Extend Limits of Debate (15), which requires a two-thirds vote without debate." RONR (12th ed.) 43:8

"Unless the assembly has a special rule providing otherwise, no member can speak more than twice to the same question on the same day—except that in the case of an Appeal (24), only the presiding officer can speak twice (the second time at the close of the debate), all other members being limited to one speech. Merely asking a question or making a brief suggestion is not counted as speaking in debate; nor is the making of a secondary motion counted as speaking in debate, so long as in making the motion the member makes no comment on the then-pending question." RONR (12th ed.) 43:12

On 9/23/2023 at 3:02 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I don't see why it's limited in the number of people who could speak on the subject. Can you give more details on the situation?

I believe the OP is suggesting that if everyone takes their full ten minutes, this adds up very quickly. Ten members speaking for ten minutes, for example, is an hour and forty minutes. Many assemblies limit the time for their meetings (either formally or informally), so these facts combined may mean that few members are able to speak on a subject.

Edited September 24, 2023 at 12:23 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Smmastiff]

Well if you have a 90-minute meeting and everybody speaks for 10 minutes and we have 10 items on the agenda we will not get anything done.

And we have one person who will talk that long on everything.

[Joshua Katz]

But one person who will speak that long on everything doesn't mean everyone needs to speak that long on everything. 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/30/2023 at 11:31 AM, Guest Smmastiff said:

Well if you have a 90-minute meeting and everybody speaks for 10 minutes and we have 10 items on the agenda we will not get anything done.

And we have one person who will talk that long on everything.

The organization is free to adopt its own rules on this subject providing for a shorter time limit if it so desires. A special rule of order may be adopted by a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. As previously noted, a rule of this nature is not unusual.

In the interim, the assembly may use the motion to Limit Debate in order to impose stricter limits on debate for a particular motion (or even for the entire meeting), or even use the motion for the Previous Question to end debate altogether on the pending motion.

But unless some of these items are of a very routine nature, and little if any debate is anticipated, ten items in ninety minutes is perhaps a bit ambitious. That would be an average of nine minutes per item - and actually slightly less, since there will be some time consumed on opening and closing business (calling the meeting to order, approving minutes, etc.).

On 9/30/2023 at 11:32 AM, Joshua Katz said:

But one person who will speak that long on everything doesn't mean everyone needs to speak that long on everything. 

Perhaps, but even one person speaking for ten minutes on every item adds up to 100 minutes, and apparently the assembly wishes to complete the meeting in 90 minutes.

Edited September 30, 2023 at 04:47 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/30/2023 at 12:31 PM, Guest Smmastiff said:

Well if you have a 90-minute meeting and everybody speaks for 10 minutes and we have 10 items on the agenda we will not get anything done.

And we have one person who will talk that long on everything.

Well, you have the power to change that rule any time you want, using the motion to Limit Debate [RONR (12th ed.) §15].  This can limit the length or number of speeches for each member, or set a clock time at which point debate will cease.  This is not a permanent rule change, but only applies to a given motion or series of motions.  (To change the rule permanently would require adopting  a Special Rule of Order.)

You can also move to end debate at any time, by moving for the Previous Question [§16].

Both of these motions require a two-thirds vote, since they may restrict the rights of a minority.  But if you can't get two thirds to agree, then you are in a small minority of members who believe debate has gone on too long.

Edited September 30, 2023 at 05:39 PM by Gary Novosielski
fix error

[Joshua Katz]

On 9/30/2023 at 1:34 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Either of these motions require a two-thirds vote, since they may restrict the rights of a minority.  But if you can't get two thirds to agree, then you are in a small minority of members who believe debate has gone on too long.

Or a small majority.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/30/2023 at 1:39 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Or a small majority.

Yes, possibly a substantial minority or even an insufficiently large majority.  But in any case holding the non-prevailing view.

[Wright Stuff]

On 9/30/2023 at 1:34 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You can also move to end debate at any time, by moving for the Previous Question [§16].

In the case of the member consuming all ten available minutes, how does move the Previous Question help? The mover has to obtain the floor to make the motion while the long-winded member has the floor. 

[J. J.]

On 12/23/2023 at 11:40 PM, Wright Stuff said:

In the case of the member consuming all ten available minutes, how does move the Previous Question help? The mover has to obtain the floor to make the motion while the long-winded member has the floor. 

When the member stops speaking after the first ten minutes, another member may be recognized and move the Previous Question. 

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/24/2023 at 7:24 AM, J. J. said:

When the member stops speaking after the first ten minutes, another member may be recognized and move the Previous Question. 

That's my point/question. He can't be interrupted after he obtains the floor, so he can drone on for the full ten minutes. Previous Question limits the ability of OTHER members to speak (unless I'm missing something.)

[J. J.]

On 12/24/2023 at 8:45 AM, Wright Stuff said:

That's my point/question. He can't be interrupted after he obtains the floor, so he can drone on for the full ten minutes. Previous Question limits the ability of OTHER members to speak (unless I'm missing something.)

The assembly can limit debate before that, if they choose to. 

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:18 AM, J. J. said:

The assembly can limit debate before that, if they choose to. 

Of course, but getting back to my original point, moving the Previous Question is not a remedy for the guy who obtains the floor and then consumes the entire ten minutes. It’s a remedy to prevent subsequent speakers from doing the same.

I’ve wondered why RONR doesn’t adopt a shorter time that can be lengthened instead of a longer time that needs to be shortened. I’m confident that there’s a good reason. If I’m a member of our bylaws committee next year, I may float the idea of a shorter time period. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:44 AM, Wright Stuff said:

I’ve wondered why RONR doesn’t adopt a shorter time that can be lengthened instead of a longer time that needs to be shortened.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. The 10 minutes RONR allots is less than 20 minutes, but can be lengthened. 

On 12/24/2023 at 9:44 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Of course, but getting back to my original point, moving the Previous Question is not a remedy for the guy who obtains the floor and then consumes the entire ten minutes. It’s a remedy to prevent subsequent speakers from doing the same.

 

Yes, but it also keeps the same speaker from speaking a second time. I'm a bit confused, though, we we're speaking about remedies for a member doing what is permitted under the rules. 

[Josh Martin]

On 12/24/2023 at 8:44 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Of course, but getting back to my original point, moving the Previous Question is not a remedy for the guy who obtains the floor and then consumes the entire ten minutes. It’s a remedy to prevent subsequent speakers from doing the same.

I’ve wondered why RONR doesn’t adopt a shorter time that can be lengthened instead of a longer time that needs to be shortened. I’m confident that there’s a good reason. If I’m a member of our bylaws committee next year, I may float the idea of a shorter time period. 

The "ten minutes" default dates back to the first edition of Robert's Rules of Order, published in 1876. This was actually a very significant limitation at the time as, prior to that, the rule under the common parliamentary law was that there was no limit at all on how long a member could speak. General Robert explains some of his reasoning in Parliamentary Law as to why limits on debate were appropriate, and why he selected the limits that he did.

As to why ten minutes, specifically, was chosen, it appears this was because this had become the common practice in societies at the time. General Robert also notes, however, that if an organization desires a different ten limit, it can (and should) adopt its own rule on the matter - which is advice that remains in Robert's Rules of Order to this day. General Robert even specifically noted "Five minutes is a better limit than ten minutes in many societies."

"According to the old parliamentary law, when a member obtained the floor he was entitled to it as long as he was able to speak on the pending debatable question. He was obliged to confine himself to the question under consideration, and he was not allowed to read anything without permission of the assembly. But as long as he could speak on the question without evidently wasting time with absurd or frivolous arguments, or repetitions, or unnecessary slowness of speech, there was no parliamentary way for anyone else to obtain the floor without his consent. In order to adjourn it was necessary to obtain his consent, which he might not give except upon condition that when the assembly meets again he is entitled to the floor. In the U.S. Senate, senators have held the floor until physically exhausted, while in the U.S. House of Representatives, a rule has been adopted limiting each speaker to one speech of one hour on each question. The Senate limits the number of speeches on the same question on any one day to two for each senator, but no senator can speak a second time on the same day on the same question until every one desiring to speak has spoken.

While these rules may be adapted to Congress, they would be intolerable in ordinary societies that meet not oftener than weekly, and whose sessions rarely last beyond two hours. If they were considered as establishing the parliamentary law that would be in force until rules were adopted, it would be impracticable for a mass meeting containing a few factious members to transact business.

While no rule is adapted to all bodies, it is necessary to have some restrictions on debate that will be in force in assemblies before they have adopted rules of their own. The rule that, unless permission is given by the assembly, no member shall speak longer than ten minutes at a time, nor more than twice on the same question on the same day, nor speak a second time until every one has spoken who desires to speak, has generally been accepted as giving the best results in most cases, and is the present practice in societies in the United States. In societies to which the rule is not well adapted, a suitable rule should be adopted as soon as practicable. Five minutes is a better limit than ten minutes in many societies. At any meeting the limits of debate may be changed by a two-thirds vote, as shown on page 67." Parliamentary Law, pgs. 183-184

"Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict. The average society that has adopted a suitable parliamentary authority seldom needs special rules of order, however, with the following notable exceptions:

• It is sometimes desirable to adopt a rule establishing the society's own order of business (see 3:16).
• A rule relating to the length or number of speeches permitted each member in debate is often found necessary.
• A society with a small assembly—such as one having a dozen or fewer members—may wish to adopt a rule that its meetings will be governed by some or all of the somewhat less formal procedures applicable to small boards (see 49:21)." RONR (12th ed.) 2:16

Edited December 25, 2023 at 04:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/24/2023 at 9:44 AM, Wright Stuff said:

I’ve wondered why RONR doesn’t adopt a shorter time that can be lengthened instead of a longer time that needs to be shortened. I’m confident that there’s a good reason. If I’m a member of our bylaws committee next year, I may float the idea of a shorter time period. 

After a hundred years or so, the original reason may be lost to history.  The point is that by using the motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, you can set the length of speeches or their number to any values you deem appropriate to your situation.  Or you can adopt a Special Rule of Order to that effect.  A bylaws amendment is not required, but could be used if desired.