Kevin Sullivan
Council Member
I’ve had multiple council members make a Point of Order and then use the disruption to push forward a Motion to Limit Debate. I’ve always felt uneasy about how that plays out. The person with the floor gets pre-empted and shut down with no debate as the Point of Order and Motion to Limit Debate do not allow for discussion.
I used AI to ask some questions about this sequence of events. I’ve included my questions and responses in the first attachment. The cliff notes version is that the Point of Order is strictly to propose that a violation of the Rules of Procedure has taken place and needs to be corrected. It is not a tool that can be used to shut down a speaker or jump the line in debate order. It must only be used to point out a violation and the chair can allow debate on the Point of Order and then the chair gets to rule on it. The body can appeal the Chair's decision if they want, but it would simply be an appeal of the Chair's decision on the cited violation of the Rules of Procedure. If a member wants to make a Motion to Limit Debate, they must wait to be recognized, must receive a second, and then the vote must be a 2/3rds majority to limit debate.
Additionally, I have had audience members try to assert a Point of Order. I asked ChatGPT about that as well. Only members of the body can assert a Point of Order. No attempts to raise a Point of Order from the audience are valid.
I did ask Brad about this, and he agreed with the assessment. He also found a Rosenberg's Rules Cheat Sheet that backs up these assertions.
I am quite open to dissent about this topic. Absent any cogent dissent, however; I intend to run meetings using this understanding of the Rosenberg's Rules of Order moving forward.
I used AI to ask some questions about this sequence of events. I’ve included my questions and responses in the first attachment. The cliff notes version is that the Point of Order is strictly to propose that a violation of the Rules of Procedure has taken place and needs to be corrected. It is not a tool that can be used to shut down a speaker or jump the line in debate order. It must only be used to point out a violation and the chair can allow debate on the Point of Order and then the chair gets to rule on it. The body can appeal the Chair's decision if they want, but it would simply be an appeal of the Chair's decision on the cited violation of the Rules of Procedure. If a member wants to make a Motion to Limit Debate, they must wait to be recognized, must receive a second, and then the vote must be a 2/3rds majority to limit debate.
Additionally, I have had audience members try to assert a Point of Order. I asked ChatGPT about that as well. Only members of the body can assert a Point of Order. No attempts to raise a Point of Order from the audience are valid.
I did ask Brad about this, and he agreed with the assessment. He also found a Rosenberg's Rules Cheat Sheet that backs up these assertions.
I am quite open to dissent about this topic. Absent any cogent dissent, however; I intend to run meetings using this understanding of the Rosenberg's Rules of Order moving forward.
