Limit discussion

[Joe Fong]

A resolution is made and seconded. The resolution is before the assembly for discussion and vote.

There are two clear opposing sides. How can the assembly bring the motion to a vote within 20 minutes?

Can someone make another motion to specify that discussion be limited to ten minutes for each side so a vote can take place in twenty minutes? All those for the motion would speak during the first ten minute period, and all those opposed to the motion would also speak the second ten minute period. A vote can then take place in 20 minutes. If this kind of motion can be made, what is required to pass such a motion?

[George Mervosh]

Since you're not only limiting debate, but suspending the rules on how members are assigned the floor, I think you could wrap it up with one motion to suspend the rules.......2/3 vote required.

[Tim Wynn]

RONR says that opposing sides should alternate in recognition. If you're going to suspend the rules, you might want to take a look at the rule first. You'll find it starting on page 367, line 29.

[hmtcastle]

If you're going to suspend the rules, you might want to take a look at the rule first.

If it's going to be suspended, why bother?

[George Mervosh]

RONR says that opposing sides should alternate in recognition. If you're going to suspend the rules, you might want to take a look at the rule first. You'll find it starting on page 367, line 29.

If it's going to be suspended, why bother?

Actually, Mr. Mt., I'd advise against doing what Joe Fong says he wants to do to begin with. It's gonna get messy. I'd advise Joe to just suggest a motion to limit debate to 20 minutes (2/3 vote required) and review the page Tim mentions.

[Tim Wynn]

If it's going to be suspended, why bother?

... because familiarity with an established rule may sway the decision of the assembly as to how to proceed. Such as, "Oh, that rule makes sense, lets just do it that way. That sounds fair."

In other words, why would you blindly suspend a rule you're not familiar with?

[George Mervosh]

If it's going to be suspended, why bother?

... because familiarity with an established rule may sway the decision of the assembly as to how to proceed. Such as, "Oh, that rule makes sense, lets just do it that way. That sounds fair."

In other words, why would you blindly suspend a rule you're not familiar with?

Already covered you, Tim, and I agree.

[Tim Wynn]

Already covered you, Tim...

No surprise there... you're always quicker than I am.

[hmtcastle]

In other words, why would you blindly suspend a rule you're not familiar with?

The beauty [sic] of suspending the rules is that you don't have to know which rule(s) you're suspending (and, in fact, the particular rules are not to be mentioned); you only need to know (somehow) that what you want to do requires suspending the rules. So Mr.Fong can make a motion to suspend the rules to give each side ten minutes, and ten minutes only, to speak, and that might violate one rule or a dozen rules. It doesn't matter.

That said, my response was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

[Tim Wynn]

That said, my response was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

Gotcha'.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

There are two clear opposing sides.

How can the assembly bring the motion to a vote within 20 minutes?

Use the motion "Limit/Extend Limits of Debate."

No need to suspend the rules.

Excerpt, Page 188:

The forms in which this motion may be made depend on the desired object, as follows:

a.) ...

b.) To limit time spent in debate: “... that debate on the pending amendment be limited to twenty minutes.”

c.) ...

d.) To combine several of the above objects: “I move that _____ and _____ [the leaders on the two sides] each be allowed twenty minutes, which may be divided between two speeches, and that other members be limited to one speech of two minutes each, provided that all pending questions shall be put at 4 p.m.” (see also example on p. 620).

"Wham!" - A perfect match! Straight from The Book!

Can someone make another motion to specify that discussion be limited to ten minutes for each side so a vote can take place in twenty minutes?

"Another motion"?

No, not necessary. Same motion can do the job. See "Limit/Extend Limits of Debate."

Excerpt, Page 188:

The forms in which this motion may be made depend on the desired object, as follows:

a.) ...

b.) To limit time spent in debate: “... that debate on the pending amendment be limited to twenty minutes.”

c.) ...

d.) To combine several of the above objects: “I move that _____ and _____ [the leaders on the two sides] each be allowed twenty minutes, which may be divided between two speeches, and that other members be limited to one speech of two minutes each, provided that all pending questions shall be put at 4 p.m.” (see also example on p. 620).

"Wham II, The Sequel!" - A perfect match! Straight from The Book!

All those for the motion would speak during the first ten minute period, and all those opposed to the motion would also speak the second ten minute period.

A vote can then take place in 20 minutes.

If this kind of motion can be made, what is required to pass such a motion?

A two-thirds vote will adopt a motion "Limit/Extend Limits of Debate."

No need to suspend the rules.

Excerpt, Standard Characteristic #7, "LIMIT OR EXTEND LIMITS OF DEBATE", page 185:

Requires a two-thirds vote - because it suspends the rules, and because limiting debate takes away the basic rights of all members to full discussion and may restrict a minority’s right to present its case.

"Wham! Wham! Wham!"

[Tim Wynn]

Use the motion "Limit/Extend Limits of Debate."

No need to suspend the rules.

... except for the fact that the motion to Limit/Extend the Limits of Debate does suspend the rules (p. 185, l. 13-14).

Other than that, it's was a fairly entertaining triple wham.

[George Mervosh]

... except for the fact that the motion to Limit/Extend the Limits of Debate does suspend the rules (p. 185, l. 13-14).

Other than that, it's was a fairly entertaining triple wham.

I didn't find it entertaining or particularly accurate. Unless limiting debate means all those in favor of the underlying motion get exactly half of the time alloted and they all get to go first........

[Rob Elsman]

Actually, Mr. Mt., I'd advise against doing what Joe Fong says he wants to do to begin with. It's gonna get messy. I'd advise Joe to just suggest a motion to limit debate to 20 minutes (2/3 vote required) and review the page Tim mentions.

Maybe a motion to limit debate to twenty minutes, equally divided between the sides, would come closer to what Joe Fong says he wants to do. However, I agree with you, George, to drop the idea of messing with the order in which speakers on each side are recognized.