Discussion on motion

[Guest Al]

When is it proper to have a discussion on a motion? Can the chair not let any discussion happen? Can the body demand discussion?

[hmtcastle]

When is it proper to have a discussion on a motion? Can the chair not let any discussion happen? Can the body demand discussion?

Most motions are debatable. The typical sequence is: motion, debate, vote.

The chair can not prohibit debate on a debatable motion.

[Guest Al]

If the chair doesn't allow debate, is there a phrase that should said or an action taken?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

When is it proper to have a discussion on a motion?

Can the chair not let any discussion happen?

Can the body demand discussion?

I think you are asking around your real issue.

What is the problem behind your question?

Wouldn't it be natural for discussion to occur after a motion?

Is YOUR chair not allowing legitimate discussion?

Must your membership insist, where your chair is stubborn, regarding debate?

Be aware that most parliamentary motions (e.g., recess, adjourn, previous question, etc.) are NOT debatable.

Are you trying to debate un-debatable parliamentary motions?

What is your situation? What is your chair doing with which you disagree?

[Guest Al]

I think you are asking around your real issue.

What is the problem behind your question?

Wouldn't it be natural for discussion to occur after a motion?

Is YOUR chair not allowing legitimate discussion?

Must your membership insist, where your chair is stubborn, regarding debate?

Be aware that most parliamentary motions (e.g., recess, adjourn, previous question, etc.) are NOT debatable.

Are you trying to debate un-debatable parliamentary motions?

What is your situation? What is your chair doing with which you disagree?

A motion was made to pay for advertising and a member asked for a discussion on it and the chair said no, and swiftly moved to look for a second and had the body vote on the motion, not allowing any discussion on the topic.

[Rob Elsman]

A motion was made to pay for advertising and a member asked for a discussion on it and the chair said no, and swiftly moved to look for a second and had the body vote on the motion, not allowing any discussion on the topic.

A main motion is debatable after it is seconded and the question is stated by the chair. Any parliamentary procedure that has the effect of limiting debate requires a two-thirds vote of the assembly. The chairman has no power to cut off debate while any member who is entitled to the floor is trying to claim it. Nevertheless, it seems that no one raised a Point of Order about the handling of the motion, so it's all water under the bridge, now. Take a look at RONR (10th ed.), §4, pp. 31ff.

The chairman seems to have no idea what he's doing in the chair. Have you all given a thought to expelling him from office and finding someone else who can perform the duties of the office passably?

[Larry Cisar]

A motion was made to pay for advertising and a member asked for a discussion on it and the chair said no, and swiftly moved to look for a second and had the body vote on the motion, not allowing any discussion on the topic.

You should have appealed the ruling of the chair. The chair does not have the right to close debate all by himself unless you have some special rule that we do not know about.

[David A Foulkes]

A motion was made to pay for advertising and a member asked for a discussion on it and the chair said no, and swiftly moved to look for a second and had the body vote on the motion, not allowing any discussion on the topic.

Just to clarify a couple points, should it help in the future:

1. A member does not need to ask for discussion, assuming you mean the RONR-preferred term "debate", during which members are allowed to present their points on the motion. If the motion is debatable, barring any rule of yours or other parliamentary motions adopted (Limit Debate, Previous Question, etc), then debate there shall be.

2. Typically, immediately after the motion is made and before debate begins, the second should be offered, although some debatable motions do not require one (Nominations, for example). Main motions, such as yours sounds like, would require a second. However, if the chair allows debate to begin without any objection from the assembly, the lack of a second is immaterial at that point. So, in a very technical sense, the chair was proper in not allowing debate until receiving a second on the motion. Not allowing debate at all, and moving directly to a vote, was unquestionably improper.

3. After the second is offered, the chair should "state the question" (repeat the exact motion as offered by the maker), which puts control and ownership of the motion into the hands of the assembly. He should then indicate that the debate phase has arrived, giving preference to the maker of the motion to speak first.

[tctheatc]

It seems so damn simple, doesn't it?? How does it get screwed up so often?!?!