As I’m working on Unit 9 of the Parliamentary Procedures class I’m taking right now, an article in the Lawrence Times came out discussing how one party used the exact motion we are learning about to shut down debate—essentially doing the opposite of the intent behind Robert’s Rules on calling the question.
The article, “Kansas Legislature’s GOP supermajority leans into rule that skirts debate, muffles dissent,” tells the story of the transgender bathroom bill debate that didn’t actually happen. It’s interesting to me for a couple of different reasons. First, it shows quite clearly which side is wary of open debate, as well as which side is perfectly comfortable shutting down debate on anything it chooses. Second, the motion itself requires a two-thirds majority vote to pass, and right now, Kansas Republicans have that majority. Because of that, they have the ability to run roughshod over the opposition and deny them the right to be heard in open debate—something Robert’s Rules of Order is intended to ensure.
The trick seems to be that the legislature doesn’t have any clear standards for what type of “emergency” can be invoked to require an end to debate and an immediate vote. Robert’s leaves those kinds of decisions up to the assembly itself, and it sounds like the Kansas Legislature has no real standards. If they do, those standards are ineffective at preserving the ability of the minority to be heard.
It’s an interesting illustration of why meeting rules can be really important in the management and governance of meetings and our organizations—from our library boards to our legislative bodies.