Revoking Speaking Rights

[Guest Michael]

Hello, I am curious if there was a way with Roberts Rules to revoke speaking rights of a member? Thank you!

[Rob Elsman]

For the duration of the meeting, sure. For example, this might be a punishment inflicted upon an offender who has repeatedly and contumaciously breached the rules concerning decorum in debate. Take a look at the procedures for a disciplinary action for offenses committed during a meeting, RONR (10th ed.), pp. 625-629.

[Robert B Fish]

Hello, I am curious if there was a way with Roberts Rules to revoke speaking rights of a member? Thank you!

Members of the body that is meeting have the right to speak in debate and - except for discipline - you cannot prevent them from exercisign that right. However, there are limits, such as the time limits, rules of order and decorum. Therefore, the member must confine his remarks to those allowed by decorum, not exceed his time limits, and must refrain from speaking when the floor has been assigned to another member.

However, members of the organization do not have the right to attend - much less speak - at board meetings or meeting of other sub-groups of which they are not members.

-Bob

[David A Foulkes]

Hello, I am curious if there was a way with Roberts Rules to revoke speaking rights of a member? Thank you!

Why do you want to? (it might help to know)

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Hello, I am curious if there was a way with Roberts Rules to revoke speaking rights of a member?

• If the member has not violated any rules of the organization, then the answer is clear: "No."

• If the member has violated rules of the organization, then punishment ("discipline") can include a suspension of the right to speak in debate.

But, in general, "no," you cannot willy-nilly take away any rights of membership, without a trial, or other disciplinary action.

Not to be confused with a motion to curtail all members' right to speak, a la a motion to limit debate.

(E.g.: By limiting the number of speakers, or limiting the number of minutes per speaker, or limiting the number of minutes per item, or limiting the number of opportunities to speak per question.)

[Gary c Tesser]

Now this discussion thread reminds me of a recent one, if memory serves instigated by that indefatigable perambulating paladin David Foulkes, who asked about allowable penalties beyond, say, those on p. 624 (bot.) - 625 (top.), and p. 627 (bot.) - 628 (top). None of those given penalties include suspension of the right to debate, as brought up here by _Guest_ MIchael, although I don't see any citation of contumacy in the book, as insisted here but not by MIchael, nor, regrettably, do I see submission of the violator to the judgement of the parliamentary crocodiles, which I keep insisting will keep meetings moving quickly and "interesting" (RONR, MB, 10th Ed., bottom of p. 33 -- notice the tooth marks).

N. B. I know "top," as in "625 (top.)" didn't really require a period, since it wasn't an abbreviation, the way "bot." did because it was, as in "p. 624 (bot.)." I just didn't want it to feel discriminated against. Then I left it out in "628 (top)" because that would have been just patronizing.

[David A Foulkes]

Now this discussion thread reminds me of a recent one, if memory serves instigated by that indefatigable perambulating paladin David Foulkes, who asked about allowable penalties beyond, say, those on p. 624 (bot.) - 625 (top.), and p. 627 (bot.) - 628 (top). None of those given penalties include suspension of the right to debate, as brought up here by _Guest_ MIchael, although I don't see any citation of contumacy in the book, as insisted here but not by MIchael, nor, regrettably, do I see submission of the violator to the judgement of the parliamentary crocodiles, which I keep insisting will keep meetings moving quickly and "interesting" (RONR, MB, 10th Ed., bottom of p. 33 -- notice the tooth marks).

N. B. I know "top," as in "625 (top.)" didn't really require a period, since it wasn't an abbreviation, the way "bot." did because it was, as in "p. 624 (bot.)." I just didn't want it to feel discriminated against. Then I left it out in "628 (top)" because that would have been just patronizing.

I dare say if Mr. Tesser were accepted to the authorship team for RONR-IB, it wouldn't be IB anymore. (chomp chomp)

[Josh Martin]

Now this discussion thread reminds me of a recent one, if memory serves instigated by that indefatigable perambulating paladin David Foulkes, who asked about allowable penalties beyond, say, those on p. 624 (bot.) - 625 (top.), and p. 627 (bot.) - 628 (top). None of those given penalties include suspension of the right to debate, as brought up here by _Guest_ MIchael, although I don't see any citation of contumacy in the book, as insisted here but not by MIchael, nor, regrettably, do I see submission of the violator to the judgement of the parliamentary crocodiles, which I keep insisting will keep meetings moving quickly and "interesting" (RONR, MB, 10th Ed., bottom of p. 33 -- notice the tooth marks).

The text lists "that his rights of membership be suspended for a time," and there's nothing to suggest this must be an all-or-nothing proposition. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 628, line 3) It is entirely possible to suspend only some of a member's rights as a disciplinary punishment. If this is what Mr. Foulkes was getting at back then, his question makes a lot more sense now.