Discussion prior to a motion

[Joshua Katz]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:38 AM, Guest Erin said:

E) The Chairperson shall have the authority to limit the time for debate on any topic or item by a member but not the ability to eliminate debate. The Chairperson shall make every effort to not allow debate to digress to personal attacks. lt should be emphasized it is not the person, but the measure, issue or item under question, that is the subject of debate. ln the same spirit, other Board members should not disparage each other, county employees or presenters.

 

On 5/9/2024 at 10:38 AM, Guest Erin said:

After a motion has been seconded, the Chairperson shall call for the vote. The Chairperson may also call for the vote if it appears any further discussion or debate will be repetitious.

 

So the chair can't eliminate debate, but must, it seems, immediately "call for the vote" when a motion has a second. So I guess in this organization, not only is debate without a motion permissible, it is required and is the only debate that can happen.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/9/2024 at 1:39 PM, Guest Erin said:

I apologize, I did not intend to inject any emojis above! I wish I could edit posts.

The forum software likes to change B ) to   if there's no space between the B and the ).

I think there used to be a way to turn off automatic emoji-creation but I can't seem to locate it now.

[Guest Erin]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:42 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Feel free to join our little forum and gain that ability!

 

I tried to join but I guess I was not approved yet.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/7/2024 at 11:34 PM, rulesasker said:

Doesn’t 43:7 say that the chair can’t cut off debate by putting the question so quickly that members can’t get the floor, and the vote can be discarded even after the motion is adopted? 

Well, it's a little late for that now.

But yes, if someone had pointed that out promptly after the vote had been taken, that would have been permissible.

[Wright Stuff]

“E) The Chairperson shall have the authority to limit the time for debate on any topic or item by a member but not the ability to eliminate debate.”

Couldn’t the chair limit the time for debate to one second, for example? As you know, there are people who do these things. 

[Richard Brown]

On 5/31/2024 at 8:46 AM, Wright Stuff said:

“E) The Chairperson shall have the authority to limit the time for debate on any topic or item by a member but not the ability to eliminate debate.”

Couldn’t the chair limit the time for debate to one second, for example? As you know, there are people who do these things. 

I would think that would be inappropriate and not permissible and subject to a timely point of order.  It is ultimately the assembly's decision as to what is a "reasonable" time unless you have a rule to the contrary.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/31/2024 at 9:46 AM, Wright Stuff said:

“E) The Chairperson shall have the authority to limit the time for debate on any topic or item by a member but not the ability to eliminate debate.”

Couldn’t the chair limit the time for debate to one second, for example? As you know, there are people who do these things. 

Technically, yes.  The language does not specify that it has to be reasonable.   This is a good example of bad bylaws drafting.  People think they have a hot idea to make things better and they haven't considered the unintended consequences.  

This rule almost invites abuse, because it puts the power to limit debate into the hands of one person.  The rule in RONR is far superior, because it lets the assembly, by a two-thirds vote, limit debate, or move the previous question on the pending motion, but two-thirds have to agree that it's what's best.   Trust me, if the discussion is going nowhere, it will not take long for two-thirds of the assembly to agree that it's time to do a little voting.

As someone once noted:  When all is said and done, more will have been said than done.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/31/2024 at 8:46 AM, Wright Stuff said:

“E) The Chairperson shall have the authority to limit the time for debate on any topic or item by a member but not the ability to eliminate debate.”

Couldn’t the chair limit the time for debate to one second, for example? As you know, there are people who do these things. 

I realize this is a difficult concept for some organizations to grasp, but properly understanding rules does require the application of some logic and common sense.

With the rule as written, I would not interpret the chair limiting the debate to one second as consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the rule, as to limit debate to one second is, for all intents and purposes, eliminating debate (which the rule expressly prohibits).

In a similar manner, if I were chairing a meeting operating under the rules of RONR and a member moved to limit debate to one second, I would rule the motion out of order as dilatory, and would suggest the member could instead move the Previous Question.

Edited June 7, 2024 at 05:29 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

On 6/7/2024 at 1:27 PM, Josh Martin said:

With the rule as written, I would not interpret the chair limiting the debate to one second as consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the rule, as to limit debate to one second is, for all intents and purposes, eliminating debate (which the rule expressly prohibits).

I'm not being dilatory, but our group has some hostile members. The hypotheticals I pose here on occasion are things that could very well happen. I'm trying to be prepared.

What about 30 seconds? One minute? Two minutes? Where's the line?

[Erin]

I really appreciate everyone's input on this. As it turned out, even though I think what the chairperson did felt unethical, and (definitely not in favor of the side I was on), in the end we had our final meeting this week and the entire board voted in our favor! Many of us were concerned about some funny business, because it was the people against an incredibly large corporation. The ultimate outcome surprised everyone, it was an historic precedent I think actually.  Again, thank you all for your input. You have a great group of thoughtful people here!

[Rob Elsman]

I'm really late to the party, but I did want to agree with Mr. Martin's excellent analysis. Determining what is frivolous under the rules does, indeed, require both logic and common sense. There is no substitute for these for the presiding officer who wants to perform his duties well.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/7/2024 at 8:11 PM, Wright Stuff said:

I'm not being dilatory, but our group has some hostile members. The hypotheticals I pose here on occasion are things that could very well happen. I'm trying to be prepared.

What about 30 seconds? One minute? Two minutes? Where's the line?

It will ultimately be up to the chair to determine this, and as I suggested previously, I would suggest the chair apply some logic and common sense.

With that said, of all the proposed times you have now proposed, if I were the chair, I do not think I would categorically rule those limits out of order on the grounds of being frivolous or dilatory. (I would do so for a limit of one second.) The limits may or may not be dilatory or frivolous in a particular situation.

Edited June 9, 2024 at 07:56 PM by Josh Martin