Convention rule to limit debate.

[Dominator]

The following convention rule was adopted:

Debate shall be limited to two (2) minutes to each speaker. Debate on any question shall be limited to twenty-five (25) minutes.

I understand this to be 2 minutes per speaker, per debatable motion, at a maximum of 25 minutes of debate per debatable motion.

The chair ruled this to be 25 minutes total for each main motion, including all motions attached to it, if any.

This poses a problem because members could filibuster by moving to amend and never really discuss the original main motion.

A moved an appeal but never got a second. Was my appeal sound? Were either myself or the chair accurate in this RONR understanding?

Please include references if possible.

Thank you.

[George Mervosh]

The problem lies with the unclear wording of the rule, but since no one seconded your appeal, apparently everyone else agreed with the chair as to its intent.

There is no citation, since a Convention can adopt whatever standing rules they care to, but it would be wise to be crystal clear next time.

[jstackpo]

I'd say your appeal was correct.

But, from what you say, nobody agreed with you and preferred the chair's interpretation of 25 minutes as an overall limit.

Since the 25 min rule, no matter how interpreted, is not an RONR rule, but is your association's rule, there is no RONR reference.

[Dan Honemann]

It's probably not a serious problem, since convention standing rules can be suspended by a majority vote.

[Rob Elsman]

The following convention rule was adopted:

Debate shall be limited to two (2) minutes to each speaker. Debate on any question shall be limited to twenty-five (25) minutes.

I understand this to be 2 minutes per speaker, per debatable motion, at a maximum of 25 minutes of debate per debatable motion.

The chair ruled this to be 25 minutes total for each main motion, including all motions attached to it, if any.

This poses a problem because members could filibuster by moving to amend and never really discuss the original main motion.

A moved an appeal but never got a second. Was my appeal sound? Were either myself or the chair accurate in this RONR understanding?

Please include references if possible.

Thank you.

The ruling of the chair will not be based on anything in RONR; rather, it will be based on the intent of the convention when it adopted the language of the rule. Since the appeal was not able to garner a second, I am inclined to think that the convention was satisfied that the chair had interpreted the rule in the sense that the convention intended, regardless how I might feel about the matter.

[Dominator]

Thank you all to those who responded.

My argument was based on what I understood to qualify as a "question". Since there was no second, that was the end of the matter.

Next convention, we'll hopefully get this straightened out before adoption of the convention rules.

Since I couldn't even get a second, I doubted the possibility of amending something previously adopted.

Anyhow, thanks again!