a Motion of on a Question

[Ford]

There is a special town meeting to vote the question "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen; a first selectmen and two selectmen" The vote will be by a paper ballot.

I would like to know how broad or limited any "discussion" or "debate" on the Motion "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen: a first selectmen and two selectmen." should be.

To me any comments are limited to a yes, in favor or a no not in favor. Period.

I would appreciate comments from this forum.

Thanks

[tctheatc]

sounds to me like your definition of "discussion" is more applicable to the actual voting. I'd expect to hear more of WHY someone feels yes or no is appropriate in the actual discussion.

[Rob Elsman]

There is a special town meeting to vote the question "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen; a first selectmen and two selectmen" The vote will be by a paper ballot.

I would like to know how broad or limited any "discussion" or "debate" on the Motion "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen: a first selectmen and two selectmen." should be.

To me any comments are limited to a yes, in favor or a no not in favor. Period.

I would appreciate comments for this forum.

Thanks

Debate on a main motion must be confined to the advisability of adopting the motion. In other words, what is directly pertinent to whether and why the motion should, or should not, be adopted is germane to the pending motion, but nothing more. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 41, 379, for the rules of debate concerning germaneness.

[Guest Ford]

Debate on a main motion must be confined to the advisability of adopting the motion. In other words, what is directly pertinent to whether and why the motion should, or should not, be adopted is germane to the pending motion, but nothing more. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 41, 379, for the rules of debate concerning germaneness.

[Guest Ford]

Rob,

Is a discussion that "other boards do not vote for all it's member" germane to the question?

[Rob Elsman]

Rob,

Is a discussion that "other boards do not vote for all it's member" germane to the question?

What is or is not germane must be determined in the overall context of the arguments being made. Sometimes this can become a little tricky. In general, a member should be let to make his remarks without interruption unless he completely strays off the subject to tries to introduce a completely new subject into the debate.

[Ford]

Rob,

Who makes the determination? Another member, the moderator?

[Ford]

sounds to me like your definition of "discussion" is more applicable to the actual voting. I'd expect to hear more of WHY someone feels yes or no is appropriate in the actual discussion.

TC

Our selectmen do not want the voters to vote for all the selectmen so they will do anything at the meeting to convolute the question.

[Rob Elsman]

Rob,

Who makes the determination? Another member, the moderator?

Any member of the assembly (moderator or otherwise) can raise a Point of Order that the remarks are not germane. The moderator will make a ruling that is subject to Appeal by any two members and decided by majority vote without debate. For the rules regarding Point of Order and Appeal, see RONR (10th ed.), §§ 23, 24, pp. 240-252.

[Ford]

Rob,

Thanks for your comments. It looks like the meeting will be very interesting if our selectmen have their way.

Ford

[Josh Martin]

Is a discussion that "other boards do not vote for all it's member" germane to the question?

Sounds germane to me. It's common when discussing rule changes for some members to use the practices of similar organizations as a point of comparison.

[Ford]

Josh

your answer,

Sounds germane to me. It's common when discussing rule changes for some members to use the practices of similar organizations as a point of comparison.

The Motion "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen: a first selectmen and two selectmen." is not about rule changes but a question of our right to vote for three selectmen. Yes or No. To me it is a non debatable question and requires a simple yes or no vote on the paper ballot.

Ford

[tctheatc]

TC

Our selectmen do not want the voters to vote for all the selectmen so they will do anything at the meeting to convolute the question.

With all due respect, your motives in wanting debate limited to simply "yes" or "no", declaring that you believe the motion to be "non-debatable" when by all indications it isn't, are a bit suspect, also (IMHO)

[Josh Martin]

The Motion "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen: a first selectmen and two selectmen." is not about rule changes but a question of our right to vote for three selectmen.

Then it is an interpretation of the organization's existing rules? Then I'm puzzled as to how this parliamentary situation came about. Typically a question of interpretation only arises in an Appeal from the decision of the chair, or from a Point of Order submitted to the judgment of the assembly. I agree that in such a case, it would certainly be more difficult for a comparison to a similar organization to be germane, but not impossible.

Yes or No. To me it is a non debatable question and requires a simple yes or no vote on the paper ballot.

Well, I'm somewhat puzzled about the current parliamentary situation, but the question still appears to be debatable under the rules of RONR. If you want to cut off debate you'll need to adopt a motion for the Previous Question, which requires a 2/3 vote (and is not debatable).

[Gary Novosielski]

There is a special town meeting to vote the question "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen; a first selectmen and two selectmen" The vote will be by a paper ballot.

I would like to know how broad or limited any "discussion" or "debate" on the Motion "Should the electorate vote for three selectmen: a first selectmen and two selectmen." should be.

To me any comments are limited to a yes, in favor or a no not in favor. Period.

I would appreciate comments from this forum.

Thanks

The motion would almost certainly be fully debatable as a main motion. Presumably you have reasons why you think the outcome should be in your favor. Any of those reasons, even if somewhat far-fetched, would be germane in discussion, as would any reasons the opposition might consider in coming to their conclusion. None of the rules in RONR would suggest anything about the motion that would suggest it would be undebatable, as you have presented it.

[Ford]

Gary,

Appreciate you comments. I'm not saying the question is not debatable only that with a yes no vote on the question any discussion is very limited to question. People should not be talking about their personal opinion of why they might vote for or against. People could comment they are in favor or not in favor that's germane.

Ford

[Dan Honemann]

Gary,

Appreciate you comments. I'm not saying the question is not debatable only that with a yes no vote on the question any discussion is very limited to question. People should not be talking about their personal opinion of why they might vote for or against. People could comment they are in favor or not in favor that's germane.

Ford

But of course people should be talking about their personal opinion of why they might vote for or against. That's what debate is all about.

All motions must be voted on with a yes or a no.

[Ford]

PETITION

(SEC 7-9)

The undersigned electorate of the Town of Pomfret, pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Connecticut General Statutes, hereby request the Board of Selectmen to hold a special town meeting to vote Yes or No, by paper ballot, the question.

“Should the electorate vote for three selectmen; a first selectman and two selectmen?”

Upon an affirmative vote, the Board of Selectmen shall create and present an ordinance for adoption to permit full voting for the board of selectmen under Section 9-188 of Connecticut General Statute and P.A. 83-475.

To all whom have responded to my post. The above is the petition to call a special town meeting under CT law. The date has been set. Our selectmen are adamant that the vote not pass and will do anything to make sure those in attendance vote against it. They will probable hand pick a moderator who will not follow Robert's Rules of Order. They have already indicated in the newspapers their reasons why we should not be allowed to vote for all three selectmen.

What options might I have to move the question as quickly as possible?

Ford

[tctheatc]

Maybe I'm missing something, Ford, but IMHO I'm disagreeing with everything you're saying. You say "People should not be talking about their personal opinion of why they might vote for or against" but it's been pointed out that's EXACTLY what discussion is. And yet you still seemed determined to stifle it. You're afraid that the selectmen "will probable hand pick a moderator who will not follow Robert's Rules of Order" but protecting the right of individuals to have their say is a fundamental precept of RONR.

I simply don't understand your fear/reticence/distaste for having the process play out, and let whichever side that can convince a majority to vote their way prevail. Instead, you seem to be looking for a trick of sorts to prevent discussion. Do you fear that your reasons for wanting to vote "yes" (I presume) aren't strong enough to convince anyone and thus prevail?

[Ford]

TC

Let's stick to my question, "What options might I have to move the question as quickly as possible?"

F

[tctheatc]

I apologize for reading and considering the entirety of your publicly posted comments on the matter. I was operating under this presumption:

The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised

I'll certainly stop at this point.

Seeing as it appears many have tried to tell you that discussion is appropriate to no avail, I'll simply point out that Point Of Order and Calling The Previous Question have been suggested to you. Perhaps there aren't many more options because RONR isn't about trying to avoid legitimate discussion. But best of luck to you in your quest.

[Ford]

I apologize for reading and considering the entirety of your publicly posted comments on the matter. I was operating under this presumption:

I'll certainly stop at this point.

Seeing as it appears many have tried to tell you that discussion is appropriate to no avail, I'll simply point out that Point Of Order and Calling The Previous Question have been suggested to you. Perhaps there aren't many more options because RONR isn't about trying to avoid legitimate discussion. But best of luck to you in your quest.

TC your point is well taken and thanks to all who contributed.

Thanks

F