ParliPro FAQ

The Wisconsin League of Municipalities has a fantasic column about Parliamentary Procedure called "For the good of the Order".  It's a great resource, and it's what we rely on when we have questions.  You can look at the archive here.

1.  What if a representative wants to ask a question during the designated debate time.  Is a "point of information" appropriate and should it be honored?  If not, what is the alternative course of action if a student has a question during debate time?

If  Rep. Ramirez is speaking and another student has a question, they can raise their placard and say "Point of information".  Then the chair can then say "Rep. Ramirez, would you like to yield to a point of information?" It's Ramirez choice to yield or not, since they have finite time and they have the floor.  If they do yield it eats into their allotted speaking time.  

If the chair has the floor and no one else is speaking, then it's just the "ruling of the chair" to recognize a point of information.  Typically there would be no reason that they would not recognize a point of information unless it's "dilatory", meaning that someone is being disruptive.

2.  While the amendment process seems clear, what happens in a case when a representative wants to change the wording of an amendment?

This is tricky because it can be time consuming. There are two ways to address this quickly.

1) Prevention:  Before an amendment is introduced, the chair calls for a motion for a short recess (3 minutes) in order to prepare the amendment.  It should be written down so there is no confusion about the language, and this helps prevent the need to wordsmith.  This is a good procedure to introduce because it also works well in committee hearings.  Everyone has a moment to informally discuss and agree on the wording before it gets officially introduced. 

2) Changing after a motion and a second:  There is another informal procedure called a "friendly amendment" which basically asks permission of the amendment sponsors for small change to wording during discussion of the amendment.  This is actually frowned upon in professional parlipro circles because once an amendment is introduced, it is "owned" by the whole body, not by the amendment sponsors. In order to facilitate small changes like this the chair can ask for "unanimous consent" to make a small change.  The language for this is "Are there any objections to making XXXX change to the amendment? Seeing none, the change is approved through unanimous consent".  You can practice and use the unanimous consent procedure when you adjourn the meeting, or when you approve the agenda. It's just a quick way of moving through routine procedures.  However, if there is ANY objection then you have to go back to a formal motion and a formal vote.  This works best for wordsmithing or little corrections, but if there is a major change they should just vote down the amendment and start anew with a NEW amendment.  That is cleaner. 

The League of Municipalities has a Parliamentary Procedure column that is a really amazing resource.  Here is what they say about friendly amendments in a column on Ownership of Motions.

"Sometimes during the deliberation of a motion, a member believes that a relatively minor change in the wording of a motion would improve it and addresses the original mover of the motion asking, “Would you accept the friendly amendment that ….”. Since the motion now belongs to the body, it’s not up to the mover to accept or reject the suggested change – only the body makes that decision. In this situation, the chair can ask the body for unanimous consent to approve the change. If unanimous consent is not obtained – i.e., if even one member objects to the change, any member desiring the changed wording could offer a formal motion to amend which would need a second and majority vote for passage. (The amendment process was discussed in the May issue of this column.)"