We Interrupt This Meeting

By Todd Brand, PRP

While our teachers and loved ones may have taught us the sage advice, “never interrupt,” we parliamentarians know that interruptions are an important part of the parliamentary process. One common motion is a Point of Order, which alerts the chair and the assembly to a breach of the rules. Two other interrupting motions are found in section 33 of RONR, specifically a Request for Information, and a Parliamentary Inquiry. The purpose, characteristics, and proper handling of these latter two motions are the focus of this article.

As we jump in, let’s note two reasons these motions are important. It is not uncommon to witness a member saying, “Point of Order” (which requires a ruling of the chair) when really the goal of the member was not to point out a breach of the rules, but rather to gain information or understanding. It makes sense to use the right motion and avoid the need for a ruling if that is not the goal. Second, these motions aid the membership’s decision making. While we work to keep meetings moving forward efficiently, a meeting that rushes by with members casting votes without the information they need or without understanding the current parliamentary process, can lead to frustration and poor decision making. Members have the right to certain information, and always the right to know what is happening in the current parliamentary situation.

So, what are the common characteristics of these two motions? Can we even call them motions? These requests are indeed motions; however, they are unique in certain ways. Let’s discuss. The standard descriptive characteristics of these two requests require no second, neither is debatable or amendable, and neither is subject to reconsideration. More important, neither includes a vote, so they are certainly not your typical motions! For further characteristics, the reader should examine RONR 33.2.

The purpose of a Parliamentary Inquiry is “…to obtain information on a matter of parliamentary law or the rules of the organization bearing on the business at hand.” RONR 33:3. Often this type of request will arise around the process of handling amendments, as this can be confusing for members. It may also come up in the context of questioning the order

of secondary motions, or as a request for the chair to assist in wording or choosing an appropriate motion. Whatever the question might be, the need for this motion is clear. A confused member (or the entire membership!) does not help the decision-making process. In addition, when members do not understand what is happening in the parliamentary process, it is easy to lose faith in or disengage from the meeting process itself, or, even worse, the organization. It is better for a member to gain clarity on what is happening than to become frustrated or make the assumption that the rules are unfair.

In RONR 33:4&5, we are directed on how to process a parliamentary inquiry with some important notes. By way of process, a member rises to make an inquiry, the chair asks the member to state the inquiry, and the member then has the floor to do just that. This part is straightforward, but remember the following as well: First, this inquiry is not subject to appeal, as there is no ruling. The answer from the chair is simply an opinion. This adds value to this motion in that the process is simple and often very quick. It can also serve the chair well by providing a glimpse at where the greater membership may be in understanding the meeting process and may lead the chair to provide more clear articulation of upcoming steps as the meeting progresses. Second, remember this is an interrupting motion. A parliamentary inquiry may be made when another member has the floor. Unlike a point of order, which must be addressed at that time by the chair’s discretion of the urgency of the inquiry, the answer may be delayed until after the current speaker is finished. Third, a reminder that the chair is under no obligation to answer hypothetical questions. That said, it may serve the meeting well to do so if the chair senses it will assist the membership with the business at hand.

Turning our attention to our second motion, let us consider the Request for Information. This motion “…is a request directed to the chair, or through the chair to another officer or member, for information relevant to the business at hand but not related to parliamentary procedure.” RONR 33:6. This type of request could arise when the background information for a motion is inadequate or incomplete. Often this request is about the impact a motion or amendment will have on the budget or the organization itself. There are many reasons why such a request may be made, and, like the parliamentary inquiry, this motion is helpful to give members a way to become better informed about the decision at hand.

The details we need to properly handle the request for information are found in RONR 33:7-10. Similar to the parliamentary inquiry, a member rises to make the request, the chair

asks the member to state the request, and the member then asks their question. Like the previous motion we examined, the chair can use some discretion when this request interrupts the speaker who has the floor and has begun to speak. It is hard to imagine many instances when the desired information can not wait until the speaker has relinquished the floor. However, the reason this request may interrupt is that the question itself may be for the speaker who has the floor. In this case, the speaker decides whether they will allow the interruption and, if so, the time used comes out of the speaker’s allotted time. If not directed to the speaker, there likely does not need to be an interruption, and the chair or someone else through the chair, can respond after the person assigned the floor is finished speaking.

A few thoughts in closing. The calm and professional handling of these interrupting motions sets a tone for their proper and reasonable use. One question that a parliamentarian may wonder is whether these requests must be stated formally and in proper form. While we try to encourage proper parliamentary language in our meetings, these requests are often stated less formally. The chair should recognize this and process the requests as a proper request for information or parliamentary inquiry, regardless of the formality used by the member. A reminder too, it can be helpful to teach organizations and their members the use of these motions. The use of these motions helps avoid the incorrect and somewhat more complex and disruptive Point of Order. These requests also empower members, and better engage them with the meeting to acquire information to assist with sound decision-making. Finally, with many meetings occurring online these days, parliamentarians need to ensure that all participants understand how to make an interrupting motion. It could be the dedicated purpose of the chat box, or perhaps through use of a unique icon to gain the attention of someone monitoring the online platform, who will then alert the chair. NP

WoRk ciTED

Robert, Henry M., Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th Ed. Eds. Sarah Corbin Robert, Henry M. Robert III, William J. Evans, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold, Shmuel Gerber. New York: Public Affairs, 2020.

Todd Brand, PRP, is the current president of the Alberta Association of Parliamentarians. With a Master of Arts in Leadership & Management, Todd blends his knowledge of organizational development with his expertise in parliamentary procedure to help his clients via consultation, training, presiding, and serving as meeting parliamentarian.