Controversial motion

[Chris Harrison]

Let's say there is a relatively small organization (more than a dozen members) and an unexpected motion is made that is so controversial that everyone wants to speak in debate on it. The President announces that he wishes to speak on the motion and the VP also declines to preside because he wants to speak on it as well. The President gauging that he will have a difficult time finding someone who would be willing to accept a nomination as a Chair pro tem asks the assembly if there are any nominations or anyone would be willing to volunteer. Of course no one volunteers and any nominations are declined because the member wants to speak on the motion. If the assembly does not want to postpone consideration of the question until they can get a nonmember to serve as the Chair pro tem is there any other parliamentary options available to deal with the motion at that point?

[hmtcastle]

If the assembly does not want to postpone consideration of the question until they can get a nonmember to serve as the Chair pro tem is there any other parliamentary options available to deal with the motion at that point?

If no one else will, the president should fulfill his responsibility and preside.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Say! That is exceptional!

I would suspend the rules.

I would allow everyone to debate, since the alternative would be to have no one act as chair.

Or, to have the motion postponed indefinitely, or withdrawn, due to no one acting as chair.

[Chris Harrison]

If no one else will, the president should fulfill his responsibility and preside.

Even if he still wants to speak on the question?

[hmtcastle]

Even if he still wants to speak on the question?

I think his duties as president outweigh his desire to speak in debate, especially since there seems to be more than enough debaters to argue the question to death.

Mr. Goldsworthy's suggestion (suspend the rules) seems reasonable unless there are enough members who don't want the president to enter the fray. If the assembly is evenly divided, a two-thirds vote won't be achieved.

[Rob Elsman]

Even if he still wants to speak on the question?

Yes. I agree with Mr. Mountcastle. The president's premier duty is to preside at the meeting. In effect, he promised to do it when he accepted the office. If no one else is able and willing to occupy the chair temporarily, the president must fulfill his promise. It just comes with the territory.

[Chris Harrison]

Yes. I agree with Mr. Mountcastle. The president's premier duty is to preside at the meeting. In effect, he promised to do it when he accepted the office. If no one else is able and willing to occupy the chair temporarily, the president must fulfill his promise. It just comes with the territory.

I would (much to my dismay ) have to agree with that.

[tctheatc]

Seems to me that if the president considers his opinion to be of more worth than the duties of his office (including being impartial), maybe you're starting down a bad road. That the motion appears to be so controversial is all the more reason to have an effective chair in place to keep things cool.

[Chris Harrison]

Seems to me that if the president considers his opinion to be of more worth than the duties of his office (including being impartial), maybe you're starting down a bad road. That the motion appears to be so controversial is all the more reason to have an effective chair in place to keep things cool.

You raise a very good point.

[David A Foulkes]

Seems to me that if the president considers his opinion to be of more worth than the duties of his office (including being impartial), maybe you're starting down a bad road. That the motion appears to be so controversial is all the more reason to have an effective chair in place to keep things cool.

Although I'd have to wonder if this chair could be effective and "cooling", considering how badly he wants to enter into the fray. It may be worse, as he begins to favor those who share his point of view and possibly acting negatively towards those who don't, calling them out of order and the like. We've seen similar behaviors in too many posts of late.

I think this is a case where the members should accept Postponing Definitely and bringing in a "neutral" (and as experienced as possible) outside chair pro tem as the best approach. The fact that they apparently feel so strongly that they don't want to do this only underscores the necessity of it. IMHO.

[Rob Elsman]

Although I'd have to wonder if this chair could be effective and "cooling", considering how badly he wants to enter into the fray. It may be worse, as he begins to favor those who share his point of view and possibly acting negatively towards those who don't, calling them out of order and the like. We've seen similar behaviors in too many posts of late.

I think this is a case where the members should accept Postponing Definitely and bringing in a "neutral" (and as experienced as possible) outside chair pro tem as the best approach. The fact that they apparently feel so strongly that they don't want to do this only underscores the necessity of it. IMHO.

You are failing to distinguish between the president's being impartial and his maintaining the appearance of impartiality. It often happens that the president is passionate about questions that come before the assembly. All the rules require, however, is that he maintain the appearance of impartiality. This, of course, means that he applies the rules evenly, without regard to sides of the question.

[David A Foulkes]

You are failing to distinguish between the president's being impartial and his maintaining the appearance of impartiality. It often happens that the president is passionate about questions that come before the assembly. All the rules require, however, is that he maintain the appearance of impartiality. This, of course, means that he applies the rules evenly, without regard to sides of the question.

Yes indeed, the appearance of impariality is required. I wasn't suggesting the chair should be "apathetic" towards any motion. I'm merely suggesting, based on too many recent posts, that even presenting that appearance of impartiality to the membership seems a challenge. Yes, he should appear impartial. What the chair should do, and what he actually does, are often two very different things. Taking appropriate steps to prevent that seems like an idea worth considering. That's all I'm saying.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes indeed, the appearance of impariality is required. I wasn't suggesting the chair should be "apathetic" towards any motion. I'm merely suggesting, based on too many recent posts, that even presenting that appearance of impartiality to the membership seems a challenge. Yes, he should appear impartial. What the chair should do, and what he actually does, are often two very different things. Taking appropriate steps to prevent that seems like an idea worth considering. That's all I'm saying.

The person who finds it too challenging to maintain the appearance of impartiality, in service to the assembly, has no business standing for election, or accepting an election, to president or vice president. This is something that each person must consider up-front. Once in office, however, it is not an option; it is a duty of his office for the good of the assembly as a whole.

[David A Foulkes]

The person who finds it too challenging to maintain the appearance of impartiality, in service to the assembly, has no business standing for election, or accepting an election, to president or vice president. This is something that each person must consider up-front. Once in office, however, it is not an option; it is a duty of his office for the good of the assembly as a whole.

Agreed, although when "an unexpected motion is made that is so controversial that everyone wants to speak in debate on it" is made, that may be the exception to the rule. As RONR does allow the chair to relinquish the chair and engage in debate, it's not a 100% impossibility, just should be exercised with judiciousness and caution. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.

So, would Committee of the Whole or Quasi Committee of the Whole work in this case? Would either of those allow the chair to engage in debate?

---

Edited to add last question.

[Rob Elsman]

Agreed, although when "an unexpected motion is made that is so controversial that everyone wants to speak in debate on it" is made, that may be the exception to the rule. As RONR does allow the chair to relinquish the chair and engage in debate, it's not a 100% impossibility, just should be exercised with judiciousness and caution. Nonetheless, your point is well taken.

So, would Committee of the Whole or Quasi Committee of the Whole work in this case?

No need, in this case. If all the other members wish to reserve the right to speak in debate, then the regular president remains in the chair and maintains a demeanor--both in words and in actions--of interested, but dispassionate, attentiveness.

[David A Foulkes]

Chris - here's my final thought. As you say, this being so controversial that everyone wants to speak, it's likely they all have solid positions and will vote accordingly. Adjourn to a Fixed Time (maybe 2 hours?), bring out the snacks and beverages, and talk. At the end of two hours, reconvene and vote. Anyone who could be persuaded to change their mind during debate would also do so under the influence of nachos and root beer. This sounds like one of those issues where the vote count will never change. Then, prepare for Reconsider, or R/ASPA.

[Chris Harrison]

Adjourn to a Fixed Time (maybe 2 hours?), bring out the snacks and beverages, and talk. At the end of two hours, reconvene and vote. Anyone who could be persuaded to change their mind during debate would also do so under the influence of nachos and root beer.

I like the way you think.

[Josh Martin]

So, would Committee of the Whole or Quasi Committee of the Whole work in this case? Would either of those allow the chair to engage in debate?

None of the forms of Committee of the Whole permit the chair of a large assembly to speak in debate. It seems to me if we accept all of the caveats Chris H. has placed (the chair insists on debating, the assembly refuses to postpone the motion, no non-members are present), the assembly has three options for considering the question and permitting everyone to speak:

• Suspend the Rules to permit the chair to speak in debate.
• Through use of the motions to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, Adjourn, and/or Recess, discuss the motion outside of the context of the meeting. The assembly could either use the motions to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question to force an immediate vote when the assembly reconvenes. Alternately, by the time the informal discussion is done, someone will have hopefully got all the debating out of his system.
• The assembly may wish to use the strategy of "breakout groups" discussed in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 525, lines 3-22. This is essentially a more formalized variant of the previous strategy and it has all the same options for what to do when the assembly returns to its usual setup.

While Suspending the Rules or just having the chair do his job may solve the surface issue, I don't think it gets at the root of the problem. I would advise using either of the latter options.

[J. J.]

The assembly could Recess, and just talk about the motion outside of the meeting.