PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY ASKS MULGREW TO FOLLOW THE RULES WE EXPECT IN KINDERGARTEN

Here is the exact text of the Parliamentary Inquiry I mostly gave at the April Delegate Assembly. Feel free to chime in as to where Mulgrew tried to cut me off. I think I got almost everything in.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Page 293 of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised says, “A parliamentary inquiry is a question directed to presiding officer to obtain information on a matter of parliamentary law or the rules of the organization bearing on the business at hand.”

The last two meetings I have been unceremoniously called out of order so I need clarification.

I was told last month I could not amend a resolution when I had the floor but on page 386 in Rules Governing Debate it says, "...a member having been recognized for any legitimate purpose has the floor for all legitimate purposes." I can offer an amendment during my speaking time according to Robert's Rules.

Also, two months ago five speakers spoke in favor of endorsing the mayor and one spoke against. Robert's Rules says this on page 31 in a part called assigning the floor, "In cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question..., the chair should let the floor alternate as far as possible between those favoring and opposing the measure." Robert's Rules then gives suggestions on how to accomplish this. 

The majority caucus in this body operates under a principle called democratic centralism. A decision is made internally and then the caucus members (almost always) follow it here. The chair knows who his caucus members are and knows who the opposition is mostly. Opposition is entitled to half the speakers if there is a debate including responding directly to the person who motivates something. The majority caucus can move to end debate anytime you want when it's your turn. We can do what we want including raising amendments when it's our turn. 

Will this simple rule known in kindergarten as taking turns be followed here?  

The President responded by saying he would get back to me. I went right to the Parliamentarian after the meeting. We went over the pages in question together. UFT lawyer Adam Ross joined us. Ross told me they would give me an answer.

If anyone thinks I am quoting out of context because I tried to edit my Inquiry for brevity, please read the entire sections that are referred to and are copied below.

Page 30, Line 31- Page 31, Line 26:

While a motion is open to debate, there are three important cases where the floor should be assigned to a person who may not have been the first to rise and address the chair (but who did so before anyone had actually been recognized).
These cases are as follows:

1) If the member who made the motion claims the floor and has not already spoken on the question, he is entitled to be recognized in preference to other members.

2) No one is entitled to the floor a second time in debate on the same motion on the same day as long as any other member who has not spoken on this motion desires the floor.

3) In cases where the chair knows that persons seeking the floor have opposite opinions on the question (and the member to be recognized is not determined by [1] ot [2] above), the chair should let the floor alternate, as far as possible, between those favoring and those opposing the measure. To accomplish this, the chair may say, for example, "Since the last speaker spoke in favor of the motion, who wishes to speak in opposition to the motion?" or "Since the last speaker opposed the motion, who wishes to speak in its favor?"

A member cannot rise for the purpose of claiming preference in being recognized (as this right is called in all of the above cases) after the chair has recognized another member. If at any time the chair makes a mistake, however, and assigns the floor to the wrong person--when preference in recognition was timely claimed or in any other case--his attentions could be called to it by raising a Point of Order (23), and he should immediately correct the error.

It isn't that hard to take turns. We teach it in Kindergarten. It is a parliamentary procedure established in 1592 as Page xxxiv bullet one says explicity in Robert's Rules:

Alternation between opposite points of view in assignment of the floor:  1592. It was made a Rule, That the Chairman shall ask the Parties that would speak, on which side they would speak... and the Party that speaketh against the last Speaker is to be heard first.

Duh!

Do we have the right to propose amendments when we have the floor?

This is from page 386, Line 22 in part of a section called, 

Summary of Procedures Incident to Debate

While debate is in progress, amendments or other secondary (subsidiary, privileged, or incidental) motions can be introduced and disposed of--and can be debated in the process, if they are debatable--as explained on pages 116-18. A member may both speak in debate and conclude by offering a secondary motion, which is a particular application of the principle that a member having been recognized for any legitimate purpose has the floor for all legitimate purposes.

That's about it folks. We have the right to propose amendments when we want and I had that right to propose the UFT take legal action to save JHS 145.

Now all we need for the DA to be a different body each month is for everyone to compel the chair to follow the rules. I believe more Delegates would show up if the discussions were fairer at the DA.