Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Question Please


Rookie358

Recommended Posts

I attended a city council meeting last night. A lady came to the council under the agenda of citizens comments and was granted the usual 3 minutes to speak. An alderman started saying personal privilege talking over the woman who had the floor and the lady was asked to stop speaking. Can anyone tell me what this is please and does it apply to the public portion of the agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a city council meeting last night. A lady came to the council under the agenda of citizens comments and was granted the usual 3 minutes to speak. An alderman started saying personal privilege talking over the woman who had the floor and the lady was asked to stop speaking. Can anyone tell me what this is please and does it apply to the public portion of the agenda?

Basically, a Question of (Personal) Privilege deals with the member's status or function as a member of the body (pp. 219-20), the city council in this case. It rarely justifies interrupting a speaker.

Let me guess. The speaker accused the alderman of some misconduct in office or misconduct that would disqualify him from office, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a city council meeting last night. A lady came to the council under the agenda of citizens comments and was granted the usual 3 minutes to speak. An alderman started saying personal privilege talking over the woman who had the floor and the lady was asked to stop speaking. Can anyone tell me what this is please and does it apply to the public portion of the agenda?

Only members of the body which is meeting have any rights under RONR (RONR p. 627). If the Council has developed rules allowing public comment they would be the ones to work out the details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a city council meeting last night.

A lady came to the council under the agenda of citizens comments and was granted the usual 3 minutes to speak.

An alderman started saying personal privilege talking over the woman who had the floor and the lady was asked to stop speaking.

1. Can anyone tell me what this [motion] is please, and

2. does it [the motion] apply to the public portion of the agenda?

1. Since your alderman (probably) mis-used the motion "Raise a Question of Privilege," then I don't know if you want the technical details of the motion (viz., how to use the motion properly), or if you want confirmation that your alderman was out of line and rude (which, per your description, he may very well have been rude and out of line).

2. Moot. -- Since your alderman (probably) mis-used the motion "Question of Privilege", then I cannot reply to you and say that "Misuse of the motion Raise a Question of Privilege applies to the public portion of the agenda."

In theory, I can hypothesize a scenario where the motion can indeed be properly used.

But, from your description, I think it is highly unlikely that this particular use of that motion was proper.

If an alderman were to object to what your lady was saying, then the proper motion, I would think, under most circumstances, should have been a "Point of Order", and not "Raise a Question of Privilege."

If you misrepresented the facts in your original post, then of course my above assumptions, and conclusions, will not apply.

Oh, one more thing:

All rules for your "public comment" portion of the meeting will not come from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th edition 2000).

The rules for "public comment" will come from either the body itself which is meeting (i.e., something customized by them), or come from a legal source (city, county, or state), and imposed on your council from on high.

So RONR will not be a good source for "rules for public comment." -- There are no such rules, within the 700+ pages of RONR. - RONR mentions that there can be such a thing as a public comment portion of an agenda, but the normal parliamentary rules won't truly apply, since nonmembers (of the body which is meeting) are involved, and have no right to speak at all, under the normal rules of RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically, a Question of (Personal) Privilege deals with the member's status or function as a member of the body (pp. 219-20), the city council in this case. It rarely justifies interrupting a speaker.

Let me guess. The speaker accused the alderman of some misconduct in office or misconduct that would disqualify him from office, right?

Yes apparently it was the alderwoman yelling personal privilege that had crashed a private neighborhood gathering demanding to speak and refused to leave 3 or 4 times.

Are alderman allowed as elected officials to attend neighborhood gatherings uninvited? What did the lady who was speaking do wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are alderman allowed as elected officials to attend neighborhood gatherings uninvited?

If it's a neighborhood gathering and they're in the neighborhood, why not?

What did the lady who was speaking do wrong?

She might not have done anything wrong. But since she wasn't a member of the body that was meeting (i.e. the council) she had no rights at that meeting as far as RONR is concerned. Your rules may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Since your alderman (probably) mis-used the motion "Raise a Question of Privilege," then I don't know if you want the technical details of the motion (viz., how to use the motion properly), or if you want confirmation that your alderman was out of line and rude (which, per your description, he may very well have been rude and out of line).

2. Moot. -- Since your alderman (probably) mis-used the motion "Question of Privilege", then I cannot reply to you and say that "Misuse of the motion Raise a Question of Privilege applies to the public portion of the agenda."

In theory, I can hypothesize a scenario where the motion can indeed be properly used.

But, from your description, I think it is highly unlikely that this particular use of that motion was proper.

If an alderman were to object to what your lady was saying, then the proper motion, I would think, under most circumstances, should have been a "Point of Order", and not "Raise a Question of Privilege."

If you misrepresented the facts in your original post, then of course my above assumptions, and conclusions, will not apply.

Oh, one more thing:

All rules for your "public comment" portion of the meeting will not come from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th edition 2000).

The rules for "public comment" will come from either the body itself which is meeting (i.e., something customized by them), or come from a legal source (city, county, or state), and imposed on your council from on high.

So RONR will not be a good source for "rules for public comment." -- There are no such rules, within the 700+ pages of RONR. - RONR mentions that there can be such a thing as a public comment portion of an agenda, but the normal parliamentary rules won't truly apply, since nonmembers (of the body which is meeting) are involved, and have no right to speak at all, under the normal rules of RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes apparently it was the alderwoman yelling personal privilege that had crashed a private neighborhood gathering demanding to speak and refused to leave 3 or 4 times.

What happened outside the meeting has no bearing on the issue.

Are alderman allowed as elected officials to attend neighborhood gatherings uninvited?

That question is well beyond the scope of procedure.

What did the lady who was speaking do wrong?

It is possible that neither the lady nor the alderman did anything wrong. Whether or not the the alderman was raising a legitimate Question of Privilege and whether or not it was in order at the time really depend on the circumstances. It possibly was in order, it possibly was not a proper Question of Privilege, it possible was a proper Question of Privilege but should have not interrupted the speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended a city council meeting last night.

This was Rookie's original post.

... it was the alderwoman yelling personal privilege that had crashed a private neighborhood gathering demanding to speak and refused to leave 3 or 4 times.

Are alderman allowed as elected officials to attend neighborhood gatherings uninvited?

This was Rookie's follow up post.

Well, Rookie, which "meeting" was it?

Choose one:

(a.) a city council meeting.

(b.) a private neighborhood gathering.

Q. For which context is your question? A or B?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two meetings the one that the woman was stopped from speaking was a council meeting

The neighborhood meeting that the alderman crashed was held a week before. The woman stated that the meeting was held on private property and it was by invitation only. From what I gathered the alderman was not on the guest list.

I just wanted to know if the alderman & mayor had the right to stop the woman. I called city hall just a bit ago and was told the only restrictions on citizens comments is a 3 minute time limit and so cursing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I called city hall just a bit ago and was told the only restrictions on citizens comments is a 3 minute time limit and so cursing.

...

I just wanted to know if the alderman & mayor had the right to stop the woman.

Yes.

100% of the rules for speaking at a council meeting, is controlled by the council.

So, if the council wanted to stop a speaker from speaking, then NO RULE from Robert's Rules of Order will prevent the council from stopping anyone, at any time, for any reason - or for no reason.

Robert's Rules does not override a council's rules.

Again, if you are asking a question about Robert's Rules of Order, then please note that no rule in Robert's Rules was violated.

And, of course, if you are asking a question about council rules, then please ask your council about the rules and about how the rules apply. - They should know their own rules. All those rules are customizations, and not taken from RONR Tenth Edition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a lot of confusion in this thread, uncharacteristically not mine this time.

Rookie 358 describes what happened last week ("yesterday," 12:03 PM): "the alderwoman ... had crashed a private neighborhood gathering demanding to speak and refused to leave 3 or 4 times." And then asks: "Are alderman allowed as elected officials to attend neighborhood gatherings uninvited?" Meaning, is there anything in RONR (or any statute perhaps, though we don't speak to statute, or statutes, on this forum) giving aldermen the plenipotentiary police power to crash any private gathering?

It seems to me the answer is an unambiguous no. So I guess that Mr Mountcastle reads the question way differently, as if Rookie358 wants to know whether there is any rule in RONR prohibiting aldermen from attending neighborhood gatherings, for he replies ("yesterday", 12:05 PM -- phenomenal quick typist; too quick?): "If it's a neighborhood gathering and they're in the neighborhood, why not?" (Well, because apparently he was asked to leave 3 or 4 times, that's why not.)

_________

Rookie358 (18 Aug '10, 12:52 PM) says: "I just wanted to know if the alderman & mayor had the right to stop the woman."

kg ("yesterday", 1:58 PM) replies: "Yes.

"100% of the rules for speaking at a council meeting, is controlled by the council."

This is unclear, if not misleading. kg's "yes" is clearly inadequate, if not just wrong. The follow-up statement about the rules of the council is probably intended to modify, and clarify, but it can't, not in the face of the stand-alone "yes"; the statement is closer to a contradiction. Rookie358 did not anywhere indicate that the council was involved in drowning out the woman making the citizen-comment (let's call her, say, Clarice, and then we can call the alderman Dr Lecter) -- only the alderman was; and Rookie358 says that stopping her was done by the alderman & mayor.

Now sure, non-members (and members as well) are obliged to obey the legitimate orders of the chair (p. 625, 628). But Rookie's phone call ("so cursing" -- probably a typo for "no cursing") suggests that Clarice was entirely in bounds. Of course it is possible that her reporting of Dr Lecter's invasion of a private gathering entailed breach of decorum -- but in that case, it is for the chairman to rein her in, not for Dr Lecter to drown her out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me the answer is an unambiguous no. So I guess that Mr Mountcastle reads the question way differently, as if Rookie358 wants to know whether there is any rule in RONR prohibiting aldermen from attending neighborhood gatherings, for he replies ("yesterday", 12:05 PM -- phenomenal quick typist; too quick?): "If it's a neighborhood gathering and they're in the neighborhood, why not?" (Well, because apparently he was asked to leave 3 or 4 times, that's why not.)

Firstly, the original poster (OP) refers, confusingly, to two different gatherings, each featuring, presumably, this same alderman. Secondly, what was first described as a "neighborhood gathering" (which I saw as a kind of block party), turned out to be a private party on private property. Keep changing, or adding to the facts, and you'll keep getting different answers. This may be fun for the OP but it's not fun for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on this...Mr. Alderman shows up at a neighborhood gathering uninvited, was asked to leave 3 or 4 times before he finally did. Ticked off lady goes to next council meeting. During public comment time she gripes about MR. Alderman's behavior. Mr.Alderman and the Mayor put a stop to her personal comments to and about MR. Alderman, since all comments are to be made to and through the Chair. Am I close?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's my take on this...Mr. Alderman shows up at a neighborhood gathering uninvited, was asked to leave 3 or 4 times before he finally did. Ticked off lady goes to next council meeting. During public comment time she gripes about MR. Alderman's behavior. Mr.Alderman and the Mayor put a stop to her personal comments to and about MR. Alderman, since all comments are to be made to and through the Chair. Am I close?

Not necessarily. The alderman may have responding to comments against his character.

Without much more detail, we really can't divine more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read it the way Susan C. did, except that I quibble, there's no evidence that the lady (Clarice) addressed the alderman (alderwoman? Dr Lecter?) directly, or -- if she did -- that it was particularly much of a provocation. And by now, if not at first, there's really no confusion about which meeting was which.

But I see Mr Mt's point. Sure, it would be hard to argue that the alderman (-woman?) had no right to attend a block party, held on public streets and sidewalks, and that the alderman should with justice refused requests from anyone to leave, if the alderman felt like staying. (They can request the keys to his Porsche, too, but guess what?)

On the other hand, a small quiet conclave in someone's back yard, or basement, is no place for an alderman to stroll into and refuse to leave.

I had taken the "gathering" to be more in the nature of the latter category, where no one who was not invited can presume to have the right to be there.

And I doubt that Original Poster Rookie358 intended to mislead, or finds much of any of this to be fun.

N. B. Probably the first time I have written "in the nature" of, as my own words. What's next, law school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...