Dilatory debate

[paulmcclintock]

I find RONR prohibits dilatory motions, but not explicitly dilatory debate. That debate must be germane helps to keep it from being dilatory (delaying), but at a large convention one could conceive of a large number of members effecting a quasi-filibuster by using their full ten minutes for debate by repeating germane points.

Is there a rule in RONR that could serve as a basis for disallowing repeating germane points in debate for dilatory purposes?

[J. J.]

I find RONR prohibits dilatory motions, but not explicitly dilatory debate. That debate must be germane helps to keep it from being dilatory (delaying), but at a large convention one could conceive of a large number of members effecting a quasi-filibuster by using their full ten minutes for debate by repeating germane points.

Is there a rule in RONR that could serve as a basis for disallowing repeating germane points in debate for dilatory purposes?

I would think repetitive debate is in order, provided it violates no other rule.

[George Mervosh]

I agree with J.J., and I wouldn't worry about it in a large convention, since typically the length of debate is truncated, often greatly so, in the standing rules adopted at the outset.

In a smaller assembly (and in a convention whose standing rules don't prohibit it), moving for the previous question will take care of it when it gets to a point most of the assembly views it as tedious.

[Chris Harrison]

In a smaller assembly (and in a convention whose standing rules don't prohibit it), moving for the previous question will take care of it when it gets to a point most of the assembly views it as tedious.

Even though if more than 1/3 of the members are the ones dragging out the repetitive debate the assembly won't be able to order the Previous Question.

[George Mervosh]

Even though if more than 1/3 of the members are the ones dragging out the repetitive debate the assembly won't be able to order the Previous Question.

If that's the case, it's not improper to be repetitive, as J.J. said earlier and which I've already agreed with.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... one could conceive of a large number of members effecting a quasi-filibuster by using their full ten minutes for debate by repeating germane points.

That is probably the linchpin.

No convention ought to allow ten minutes.

A convention is limited in its total length.

So debate should be truncated to only the number of minutes to present a couple of salient points, and then end.

Recommendation: Adopt a limit of debate closer to three minutes.

[Rob Elsman]

I would think repetitive debate is in order, provided it violates no other rule.

Yep, me, too.

[rthib]

I would think repetitive debate is in order, provided it violates no other rule.

Correct, and that is why it is important at a large convention to have well written rules to limit debate.

My rule of thumb is that if you are having to do things with a 2/3 vote, then someone messed up something with the rules.

[Josh Martin]

I find RONR prohibits dilatory motions, but not explicitly dilatory debate. That debate must be germane helps to keep it from being dilatory (delaying), but at a large convention one could conceive of a large number of members effecting a quasi-filibuster by using their full ten minutes for debate by repeating germane points.

Is there a rule in RONR that could serve as a basis for disallowing repeating germane points in debate for dilatory purposes?

I suspect the reason there is no rule against "dilatory debate" is because it is quite difficult to determine whether debate is intended to delay. In my experience, debate tends to get repetitive after a while without any concerted effort on the part of the members.

On a more serious note, RONR generally takes a fairly optimistic view of the functioning of a deliberative assembly. The theory seems to be that since the stakes for action are lower and there is more of an interest in maintaining friendly relations within the society, meetings will be more collegial than those of a legislative assembly. In the average assembly, members who try tactics like this are likely to be ostracized and will fail to make any meaningful progress. If this theory does not quite seem to fit a particular assembly, then the assembly will need additional special rules to protect against dilatory tactics. This will generally be true in a large convention, where the stakes are higher and you don't need to deal with these people for another year or two.

[paulmcclintock]

Thanks all for your replies. They confirm my uneasy feeling that the current rules in RONR allow repeating germane points in debate for dilatory purposes. Sadly, in my opinion.

So it seems a strong minority of more than one third at a convention can prevent a special rule of order being adopted reducing the debate limit to something less than 10 minutes, and then each member of the faction can speak in debate twice for ten minutes on a motion to "filibuster" to effectively keep it from coming to a vote. The weak majority (more than half, but less than two-thirds) is powerless to limit debate.

The weak majority could lay the controversial motion on the table to move on to non-controversial business, and take it from the table later, but to actually end debate of repeated relevant points would take a two-thirds vote.

I wonder if anyone has seen this done.

As to the difficulty in determining if debate is dilatory or not, it would seem similar to the difficulty in determining if various parliamentary motions are dilatory or not. Sometimes difficult, but sometimes not. But at least there is a rule against dilatory motions.

I suppose, in the absence of a rule against dilatory debate, that were it to occur, the weak majority could lay the pending motion on the table, go into executive session, hold disciplinary proceedings without trial against enough of the faction to weaken their number to one third or less and punish them with removal from the meeting. RONR p. 630 allows for discipline for conduct that hampers the organization from its work, and perhaps this approach could be used if required.

Now that I think of it, the fact that discipline can be based on hampering, that alone suggests that the chair could rule (by his initiative or responding to a point of order) that dilatory debate is out of order. Something to ponder....

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Chris Harrison]

So it seems a strong minority of more than one third at a convention can prevent a special rule of order being adopted reducing the debate limit to something less than 10 minutes

Although with a convention it very well might be possible to adopt the Special Rule by a majority of the entire membership.

Now that I think of it, the fact that discipline can be based on hampering, that alone suggests that the chair could rule (by his initiative or responding to a point of order) that dilatory debate is out of order.

Since there is no rule in RONR that says that dilatory debate is out of order if I were the Chair I would probably rule the Point Not Well Taken. Of course my ruling would probably be Appealed but I would likely welcome it.

[George Mervosh]

Chris, I think the adoption of convention standing rules which include limiting debate requires a 2/3 vote (no MEM).

Amending/rescinding them is another story.

p. 601

[Chris Harrison]

Chris, I think the adoption of convention standing rules which include limiting debate requires a 2/3 vote (no MEM).

Amending/rescinding them is another story.

p. 601

Oh. You are right. Well, there went that idea.

[George Mervosh]

Have no fear, our good friend Paul's question was purely theoretical and he knows all the moves to limit debate as good as anyone, even if he doesn't like that they may not be adopted.

[paulmcclintock]

Have no fear, our good friend Paul's question was purely theoretical and he knows all the moves to limit debate as good as anyone, even if he doesn't like that they may not be adopted.

Thanks, George.

[David A Foulkes]

Chris, I think the adoption of convention standing rules which include limiting debate requires a 2/3 vote (no MEM).

Amending/rescinding them is another story.

p. 601

George, would you clarify your thoughts here, please? It sounds like you are suggesting it would take a lower voting threshold to amend the standing rules after adoption then it would before.

[Dan Honemann]

Have no fear, our good friend Paul's question was purely theoretical and he knows all the moves to limit debate as good as anyone, even if he doesn't like that they may not be adopted.

Adoption of a convention program requires only a majority vote, even when, as is usually the case, it contains special orders. The rules on page 362 tend to move things right along in an efficient manner.