4 ms·
A successful filibuster (in organizations where that is allowed) generally requires either UNlimited speaking time, a group of opponents (not one individual), o
by Turing_Machine 6y ago
A successful filibuster (in organizations where that is allowed) generally requires either UNlimited speaking time, a group of opponents (not one individual), or both. Generally it's both.
Classic filibusters aren't really possible under the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, which include the following:
1) No one can speak at one time more than 10 minutes.
2) Anyone who has not spoken gets to speak before anyone who has already spoken.
3) No one is permitted to speak a third time to a motion.
- statstutor 6y agoYou seem to be saying that, within that version of the rules, an individual has a right to speak to every single motion for 20 minutes. If you have four motions on the agenda and an hour to cover them, that single person can comfortably guarantee that we ain't hearing the fourth motion. That would be untenable for local community organisations that I have been a part of. Every such org has that one individual member (and their pals) who would rather raze it to the ground than not get their way.
- Turing_Machine 6y ago> If you have four motions on the agenda and an hour to cover them Then the meeting goes for an hour and 20 minutes instead. Happens all the time. Or the fourth motion is the first order of business at the next meeting. Or...
- statstutor 6y ago> Then the meeting goes for an hour and 20 minutes instead. Happens all the time. My original comment was objecting to the parent claim that this is respectful of people's time.