Rising vote to cut off debate

Any and all moves to limit or cut off the right of the minority to present its case requires a two-thirds vote. Any move to deny the minority this right by a majority vote—e.g. Motion “to Table”— is by definition, out of order.

Furthermore, all two-thirds votes are expected to be taken by a rising (standing) vote (RONR, 10th, P.395, L.30). The main reason for this is accuracy, but a subtext could be that those who want to deny the minority the right to present their case should stand and identify themselves.

This last point is certainly in accord with the spirit of Robert’s Rules of Order.

On calling the question

One of the most common abuses of the spirit of Robert’s Rules of Order is the habitual use of “calling the question” to end debate prematurely. There are certainly times when talk has gone on long enough. People start repeating previous points and the Chair seems to have been lulled into a semi-conscious state. Other pressing matters call for attention. A growing sense arises that it is time to vote, so a member stands and says, “Madam President, I move the previous question” or “I call the question.” Another member seconds the motion and the Chair asks for the vote on closing debate. Two thirds must agree. If the motion to call the question passes, the Chair immediately puts the question on the motion before the house.

But far too often, assemblies have inherited the bad and unfair habit of cutting off debate while the minority has not had adequate time to express itself. And presiding officers have gotten lazy about letting people call out “question” from their seats.

The right of the minority to an adequate hearing deserves better. Here are some moves to consider. You may use all of them at different times. Your assembly can be trained, even if you have to whack them on the snout with a newspaper a few times. Don’t be afraid to do it. Practice on some of the most egregious offenders first.

TACTICS (Have your real Robert’s Rules highlighted and flagged):

-Crush the practice of people calling out “question” from their seats. If the Chair lets people get away with this, rise and say, “Point of order.” This really is about order. The Chair will ask your point. Say, “Robert’s Rules requires that a person stand and be recognized before making a motion (RONR, 10th, P.199, L.17. This is the case for every motion).

-If someone “calls the question” early and you judge that fair opportunity for debate is being threatened, consider standing and saying, “Point of order.” When asked your point of order, say something like, “Mr. President, It is foundational to parliamentary law that the minority be given adequate opportunity to debate an issue. I believe this motion cuts off debate prematurely and I ask you to rule it out of order.” Documentation: the Introduction to Robert’s Rules (RONR, 10th, P. XLIV).

Even if the Chair rules against you, there is a chance that gracious members in the assembly, hearing your rationale, will not vote for the motion to cut off fair debate.

-If the motion to “call the question” goes forward, Robert’s is clear that the vote must be a “rising” vote. People are required to stand up and identify themselves to deny the minority their rights to debate. If the Chair puts a voice vote and you haven’t used up all your good will or if the issue is crucial, stand and raise a “point of order” about the voting method. (RONR, 10th, P.199ff in the examples).

If 2/3rds of the assembly votes to cut off debate, that is their right. But if this has happened prematurely and if the issue is crucial, your final recourse is to “a point of personal privilege” affecting your place in the assembly. See the post on this subject and the link there to the post on the motion to “table” for this strategic use of “point of privilege.”

If your assembly is gracious and fair, there is a good chance you can train them about the right to adequate debate.

Out of a parliamentary quagmire

Our Convocation (region within a diocese) meeting this past Sunday was a parliamentary textbook study. It was a mess. The Dean, bless his heart, didn’t know enough Robert’s Rules to stop two people from having a back-and-forth across the aisle. I made ping-pong motions with my hand while shaking my head in the direction of the Chair. He finally caught on to that.

When someone suggested putting off a resolution until we had decided on diocese budget recommendations, the Chair asked, “Shall we table it?” I stood up, was recognized, and said the way to handle it was to “postpone until….” That worked and we came back to the resolution automatically.

The parliamentary zoo was multidimensional. With around fifty people in the room, we had people speaking multiple times to motions (from their seats yet), people making speeches on a motion after the vote was counted. The Dean was just unprepared to help that many people make decisions in an orderly, gracious way.

If you are made a chairperson of a large meeting, ask someone who knows Robert’s Rules to sit by you and offer help.

If you find yourself in a hopeless meeting, you can enlist help if you feel you are starting to sound like the parliamentary policeman. At one point, debate was going on an on with people repeating points. I suggested to a person that they call the question—ask that we move to a vote. They had never done this before, but took a chance. It was a rewarding moment of education. That person will speak up again. The motion passed and we moved to a vote.

I tried to help at the break, informing the Dean of <<The duty of the Chair to help>>. I told him he could help people make amendments against the resolution I had composed. He turned the meeting over to a facilitator who proceeded to make a speech and an amendment while in the Chair. Sheesh!

I had spoken enough already and didn’t raise a point of order. You can irritate people with too-frequent objections. The way this was going, I figured I had better save my ammo.

A savvy layperson, who was proposing the resolution, accepted the temporary Chair’s “friendly amendment” and turned a mundane budget resolution into a radical (in the best sense) mission resolution. Now we will need to support it before the Resolutions Committee. Good enough!

In addition to the resolution mentioned already, two motions regarding the evolving diocese budget passed. These motions asked that mission causes already ranked highly in the diocese budget process—mission work in Haiti, Cursillo, Kairos, and Epiphany—be fully funded. In line with our meeting instructions to find a source for the money, the motions suggested taking the money from an increase of giving to the national Episcopal Church. The giving to the national church was proposed to increase 8%, while general budget increases were around 4%.

When the surrogate chair asked me if I would accept a friendly amendment to take the money from elsewhere on one of the motions, I declined. I suggested anyone could make that amendment if they wished. No one spoke up.

Several priests tried to get the assembly to refuse to fund the mission causes from the increase for the national church, but were unsuccessful. They will have to live with the majority vote. Of course, they will have another opportunity in the diocese convention.

After the train wreck of General Convention, I must say this was a good day. Parliamentary interventions helped avert another wreck.

The duty of the Chair to help

There were parliamentary shenanigans at the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church. One of them highlights, by failure, the duty of the presiding officer to help members with their motions. Robert’s Rules of Order makes the Chair the servant of the assembly, not the police officer of it. If the latter function is given to a leader, it is the parliamentarian. Even there, Robert’s Rules lets the parliamentarian assist members with motions directly or through advice to the Chair. If a member is uncertain how to word a motion, “he can indicate briefly what he wishes to propose and can ask the chair to assist him in wording an appropriate motion” (RONR, 10^th, P.33, L.2-4). This willingness to help is later described as a “duty” (P.38, L.9-10).

I ran across a blog entry by a participant in the recent General Convention—the Very Rev’d Christopher Cantrell—in which the failure of the President of the House of Deputies to carry out this duty could be labeled Machiavellian.

Resolution A161 on the Episcopal Church’s response to The Windsor Report was being debated. This was the best effort of the Special Committee appointed to propose such a resolution to the convention. Mr. Cantrell offered a substitute motion (more on these soon) using the exact language of The Windsor Report to frame several key responses.

A Deputy went to a microphone and said the substitute was unconstitutional—that it asked the convention to do something it did not have power to do. After some consultation, the President, the Very Rev’d George Werner, indicated he would ponder the admissibility of the substitute over lunch. Mr. Cantrell and others appealed to the President and Parliamentarian to help them make the language acceptable. After lunch the President ruled the substitute unconstitutional and therefore out of order.

As Mr. Cantrell asserts, some minor changes in wording would have removed the problem without gutting the substitute. Cantrell states this “would have left it on the floor to be voted up or down. I suspect the chair took the opportunity to simply kill it rather than let that happen.” He is almost certainly correct.

The leadership did not want a straightforward vote on the clear requests of The Windsor Report. They knew such a vote would fail, leaving the Episcopal Church clearly saying “No” to the international Anglican Communion. As it turned out, even the softer language of A161 was defeated overwhelmingly. Only after extreme pressure from the Presiding Bishop did another resolution pass on the last day of the convention.

In pressured situations like this, you have to be armed with basic knowledge of parliamentary procedure to confront such power plays. You have to be ready to act quickly and boldly. A fair amount of “intestinal fortitude” is called for as well to stand up in the face of a known majority.

What could Christopher Cantrell and his allies have done?

1. They could have raised a “question of personal privilege,” appealing to Robert’s Rules’ ideal of the Chair assisting members with motions. The President would have verbalized his way though this objection.

2. When the Chair claimed powerlessness in this, they could have appealed the ruling of the Chair to the House. This certainly would have lost in a vote.

3. Finally, they could have asked that a protest be entered into the Journal and that their names be recorded. This witness is probably the best they could have done.

Robert’s Rules expects that presiding officers will assist an individual with no knowledge of the complexities of parliamentary procedure. It would be reassuring to see added grace in church meetings. But don’t count on it. Be prepared.

Motion to table as cheap trick

The motion “to table” used to kill another motion is out of order. It is also the most common violation of the spirit of Robert’s Rules of Order. And, of cheap tricks, it is king.Get prepared to defend your right to be heard in a deliberative body. Train your assembly about the misuse of the motion “to lay a motion on the table.” You’ll only have to do this once or twice.

Part of the very fabric of Robert’s Rules of Order is fairness to the minority. References to this occur throughout the book. In every place where a limiting or ending of debate is discussed, it is only by a 2/3 vote that an assembly may terminate discussion of a subject while members still wish to speak. This shows the heart of Robert’s Rules.

In contrast, the motion “to table” requires only a majority and no debate on it is allowed. It is therefore explicitly declared as out of order if the intent is to kill a motion.

Here are the facts:

Robert’s Rules devotes section 17 to the motion “Lay on the Table.” The first paragraph defines the use of the motion: It “…enables the assembly to lay the pending question aside temporarily when something else of immediate urgency has arisen [their emphasis]…” (RONR-10th, P.201, L.29-31). An example is given on page 204 (L.2): “Our speaker must catch an early flight.”

Robert’s feels compelled in the second full paragraph of the section to address the abuse of the motion: “This motion is commonly misused in ordinary assemblies—in place of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, to Postpone to a Certain Time, or other motions” (RONR, P. 202, L.4-6). If a motion “to table” is used for any purpose other than the one given above, it “…violates the rights of the minority…” (RONR, P. 202, L.10-11). Therefore, this motion used to kill another motion is “out of order” (RONR, P.202, L.13-14).

The Robert’s Rules website also features the abuse of this motion as one of their top 20 FAQs.

A bold example of this misuse is in the Rules of Order of the House of Deputies (General Convention) of the Episcopal Church (U.S.A.). Rule VII.26.g.8 (There is no parallel in the Bishop’s rules): “If amendment or substitute is laid on table the effect is the same as if it had not been offered.” This rule should be made to conform to the spirit of Robert’s Rules. If there is any place for fairness to a minority, it should be in a church assembly.

But, there are times when a motion needs to be disposed of without going on record voting it down. Suppose that a national, annual meeting of a denomination this month received a resolution from a member asking the body “to urge the government of the U.S. to support the State of Israel in its incursion into Lebanon.” Some in the church body might want an opposite resolution, but a strong majority might believe that they can’t possibly have enough information to make any action-statement to our government. Others in the majority might believe it is not in the church’s sphere to make directive political statements at all.

The proper way to kill a motion is to “postpone indefinitely.” It only requires a majority to pass, but debate is allowed and it may go into the merits of the original motion of substance (RONR, P.122, L.15). Unless a motion to “call the question” is passed immediately (requiring 2/3rds), the minority could still plead the value of the original motion.

In the case above, a simple majority could vote to “postpone indefinitely.” It is the right of the majority to determine the direction of a body. But it always takes 2/3rds to take away the right of the minority to be heard. After a fair period of debate a member could “move the previous question,” seeking to end debate. 2/3rds must agree.

TACTICS FOR FAIRNESS:

In case the stunt is pulled seeking to close debate immediately (“call the question”) after the motion to “postpone indefinitely,” you must act immediately. Be prepared. See point 3 below for a response to this cheap trick by “raising a point of privilege.” It is the best you can do. The hope is that 2/3rds of your fellow-members will not be found to quash your rights to be heard.

In the case of a misuse of the motion to table, you also have to act fast:

1. Immediately stand and raise a “Point of Order” (more on this technique in a later post). Ask the Chair to rule this use of the motion “to table” out of order, having your Robert’s Rules in your hand, flagged and highlighted for the references above. Read just one or two pertinent sentences. Say: “This use of Tabling is against a basic principle of parliamentary law—the right of the minority to a fair hearing.”

In the Episcopal House of Deputies rule noted above, great weight would rest on the word “if.” The Deputies’ rule is an accurate description; it just shouldn’t be used.

2. If the point of order is denied, “respectfully appeal” the Chair’s decision to the body (more on this in another post), hoping that enough members got the point to grant basic fairness.

3. If the appeal is lost, and if the matter being killed is important enough, immediately “raise a question of personal privilege” (affecting your participation in the body). This must be done before the vote is taken on the motion “to table.” More on this in my next full post, but for now, you may rise, address the Chair without being recognized, and say “Point of privilege.” The Chair asks what your point is. Say something like: “The right of the minority to speak is a basic part of Robert’s Rules of Order. If the assembly refuses this right, I must think about my place in this body.”

The point here can be quite grave. If you are not granted the courtesy of a fair hearing, what does this say about your place in the assembly? You may simply make such a statement and keep your place. Your strongest statement, if the overall stance of the body warrants it, would be to remove yourself from the assembly temporarily or permanently. Even here, you might go out for a recess and not come back for a period in order to reflect on your situation. You can only “walk-out” publicly once; the “boy who cried Wolf” syndrome kicks in.

Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, but sometimes it does. Those who say we can stay together “no matter what” have not adequately pondered Jesus turning over the tables of the money-changers in the Temple. He was making a radical break with “business as usual” in the place of religious assembly. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, this is properly seen as the provocation of the final plot for his death.

The Church is involved in eternal matters of life and death, and often, church legislative assemblies touch these matters. The right of a minority to be adequately heard is surely a Christian ideal. We should not fear to rock the boat in our assemblies if we are clear that important issues are at stake.

The point of privilege

An essential tool in the parliamentary kit is the device “to raise a question of privilege” (RONR, 10^th, Section 19, P.216). Flag it and mark it up in your copy of Robert’s Rules. Questions of privilege cover the full range of concerns from the most mundane (“Could the air conditioning be made cooler?”) to the ultimate—a statement of withdrawal from the assembly.

A “question of privilege” refers to the privileges of membership and participation in a deliberative body. Such questions can be raised on behalf of the whole membership (the air conditioning example) or for yourself as an individual member.

It is a high ranking move, taking precedence over all main motions and subsidiary motions (see the precedence chart in RONR, 10^th, p. 4 of the gray-shaded section). It is in order when someone else has the floor, when a motion has been made and seconded, and even when someone is speaking (if warranted; RONR, 10^th, P.218, L.22-31).

I once interrupted a speaker in a diocese convention when they began to verbally abuse a conservative congregation. The Chair sustained my “question of privilege” and directed the speaker to refrain from personal attacks. I could have used “point of order” just as well, but the question here was the privilege of members of the assembly to be treated with respect.

A motion to “go into executive session” is a “question of privilege effecting the assembly” (RONR, 10^th, P.219, L.32,33). If a member had the floor and made accusations against the President of the body, a member could rise without being recognized on a “question of privilege” and ask that the assembly go into executive session.

A “question of privilege” is the method a member would use to indicate that her place in the assembly had become questionable in her own mind. See the post “Motion to table as cheap trick” (point 3 under tactics) for intermediate and ultimate uses of this method. Clearly, before taking such a step, a member should have come to a careful, deliberate conclusion that her participation in the assembly or her membership in the body had become untenable.

The seriousness of this in church can’t be overstated. Breaking fellowship is a final witness; it is the individual’s version of excommunication toward a congregation or denomination.

METHOD:

When no one is speaking or even if a member is speaking (in rare situations as described above), but not when voting is taking place or being verified, rise, and without waiting to be recognized say: “Mr. President, a point of personal privilege” or “…a point of privilege affecting the assembly” (shortened form approved at RONR, 10^th, P.221, L.11 for smaller meetings, but commonly allowed in larger assemblies).

The Chair asks what your “question of privilege” is, and after hearing your statement, rules whether it is valid. If the Chair does not accept your point, and if the matter merits it, you may appeal the Chair’s ruling to the assembly. Say, “I respectfully appeal your ruling.”

If permitted, you may make a motion to achieve your aim.

Be clear about the use of “a question of privilege;” it is about your privileges as a member of a deliberative assembly. Practice it on something mundane (the air conditioning) to be ready to use it on something crucial. Don’t become a nuisance, but know your rights and stand up for them.

Flag, highlight, and notate

Robert’s Rules is not an heirloom novel. Mark it up and make it ready to use. I like the stiff plastic writeable Post-it Notes an inch high and inch and a half wide (mostly see-through). Use red for hot topics, yellow for supporting points, and blue for other items.

About Post-it Notes, as southerners sometimes include when saying grace, “God bless the hands that prepared them.”

Ask a parliamentarian

As I say in <<Author>>, I am not a licensed parliamentarian, but I have a fair amount of experience. Use the comments here to ask a question. I’ll do my best to point you in the right direction.

Open input

Use the comments here to bring up anything you want about parliamentary procedure in church (or other organizational) struggles.

The author reserves the right to zap any comment without explanation.

A note on dates of posts–ignore them

The dates can be manipulated on WordPress and I do so to arrange the material in a logical, if not tactical, order.

I’ll let you know of new material with a brief initial post.

Just for the record, I started the blog on July 29, 2006 looking toward a training session leading up to our diocese convention in October.