There will be a time limit for each item scheduled for discussion during a General Session. The Moderator may make small extensions or changes to these time limits to help the meeting move smoothly and remain within the agenda, or to make an ability-based accommodation.
During discussion time, delegates may speak on the item up for discussion from the Pro or Con line for up to ninety seconds when it is their turn.
The only time that counts against the discussion time limit is when someone is speaking from the Pro or Con Line. Time spent by members of the Board of Trustees or Commission on Social Witness explaining the business being discussed does not count against the time limit.
The Moderator will try to divide the time between Pro and Con speakers equally and will alternate between speakers in the Pro and Con lines.
Time Limits
Individual items included on the Final Agenda have individual time limits specific to those items. Items which may change after the publication of the Final Agenda, such as amendments to regular business items, have an overall time limit for all items of that type. For item types with an overall time limit, sponsors will have up to 90 seconds to present their submissions and will be allowed an additional 90 seconds at the end of the discussions to respond to any comments made from the Pro/Con lines, with additional Pro/Con discussion time as determined by the Moderator.
Item
Discussion Time Limit
General Session
Regular business item, e.g. business resolution (individual)
15
IV
Amendments to regular business items (overall)
15
III
Amendments to Article II proposal (individual)
15
II, III
Full Article II Proposal, including any approved amendments
30
IV
Action of Immediate Witness, once added to the final agenda (individual)
12
IV
Responsive & Budget Resolutions (overall)
30
IV
If time for an item scheduled on the agenda is not needed, the Moderator may choose to add unused time to the overall discussion time limit of another item in the same General Session.
Note: The process to admit AIWs to the business agenda is defined in Rule 12.
Close of Discussion
Discussion on a business item ends when the time limit is up, or when no one is waiting to speak in either the Pro or Con line. The Moderator may end the discussion before the time limit if one of the Pro or Con lines has no one waiting to speak.
The way it is written makes it sounds like after the sponsor has had the additional 90 seconds, there will be additional pro/con discussion. If that is not intended, it should be rewritten to clarify that the final 90 seconds will take place after all the pro/con lines are closed and that no additional pro/con will be heard after that final word. I cannot support it the way it is written.
I am not in favor of this amendment. I feel like folks should prepare their proposal and have enough pro speakers to get their points across. I also feel like this would be too much of that back and forth as we discussed in the mini assembly. If they wish to summarize their points and rebut if they can do so here in the discuss site.
The issue that happened last year feels like a separate issue. I believe the moderators and folks who organize the pro and con queue let the amendment proposers down by letting folks speak to the wrong amendments and when it happened the moderators didn’t correct it in the moment and they didn’t send any follow up correspondence that I saw to fix their error.
That is not what this amendment is this amendment essential gives the pro speakers more time and allows for more rebuttal.
I do not think this amendment is the right fix to that issue that happened last year though I do really wish the moderators and queue handlers had handled it differently then and would like a better sense that they won’t let that happen again.
That was my understanding; a final 90-second comment by the presenter to clarify, not to be responded to by anyone else. I support that, and do remember last year when someone was opposing the wrong amendment—I wonder if/how that affected the vote?
I will just add that we (co-authors/editors of the amendment that was misidentified and had other problems) asked for this to be corrected before voting closed and it was not addressed. Likewise, the UU World Article(s) I saw continue the confusion between the amendment presented by Janet Leavens and the other ones by stating only that “original Sources” amendments were voted down. Ours was not an original Sources amendment but fully combined and redited both the Sources and Inspirations, with a lot of input, and also added the Creative Arts language.
That said, these are not unrelated issues. No one else is going to be able to correct errors or misunderstandings and make clarifications in the way that the authors of the amendment can do. The mods/queue handlers do not have this knowledge.
In legal cases, the Prosecutor gets the final closing argument, because they have the burden of proof. In criminal law, “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a very high standard. One case that I was a volunteer investigator on for a public defender’s office may have been won because the law student who defended did such a thorough job of explaining what “beyond a reasonable doubt” means, and how very much higher that is than the burden in a civil case. (And the client, I had no doubt after my investigation and the answer of the witnesses who testified against the client, was innocent.)
Here, there is a similar very high bar. These amendments require 3/4 of the vote to pass–including the Peace Amendment, which was actually among the few 15 chosen to be presented (winnowed down from over 400 proposed amendments, if I recall correctly). Only 13 were presented. The Peace amendment has been brought back because no more time was given last year, and this amendment has already met the much higher bar of 15-congregational support. Now this one and the other amendments must meet the very high bar of 3/4 of the vote to pass.
Compared to last year’s enthusiasm for participating in the amendment process, this year, only five amendments were even proposed (one fell just 2 congregations short of meeting approval.) The authors who devoted hours and hours of their lives to bring their amendments forward to attempt this very high hurdle deserve an extra 90 seconds to make sure that their case has been presented accurately.
I have said all along that to me, the fairness of process and therefore the validity of the outcome are much more important than the words that get written down. I ask you to consider the arguments that have been raised here with that in mind.
Hi. That was a lot of text in your reply and not much seemed to be about the actual amendment being proposed here. Can you explain how letting the proposer have a final say would fix the problems you outlined in your wall-o-text?
Last year, one of the speakers at the Con mike was speaking to the wrong amendment. Giving the proposer an additional 90 seconds to point that out would have been very helpful.