Dan Honemann

I think you are now simply indicating that you don't think that the rule in RONR should be what it is. That's okay. What I object to is someone insisting upon a misinterpretation of a rule in RONR.

It took more than minority to decide to create this order of the day.

No. The adopted agenda becomes the order in which business is to be conducted, it isn't itself an order of the day. Each item on it, however, is an order of the day.

RONR (12th ed.) 41:32 tells us that: "... The special rule of order establishing a consent calendar may provide that, when the matters on the calendar are called up, they may be considered in gross or without debate or amendment. Otherwise, they are considered under the rules just as any other business, in which case the 'consent' relates only to permitting the matter to be on the calendar for consideration without conforming to the usual, more onerous, rules for reaching measures in the body. What, exactly, do your bylaws or special rule of order provide with respect to your consent calendar?

Thank you. I flubbed that one.

I think it possible that you have in mind the discussion in this thread in which it was noted that adoption of a motion such as the one described in 15:19(b) does not mandate that debate continue until the time prescribed for closing debate. It simply orders that debate shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time. The difference between that situation and this is that the adoption of a motion such as the one described in 15:19(b) does not create an order of the day. We are here dealing with a situation in which adjournment has been made an order of the day.

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

I still don't understand this. What distinguishes "vanilla" rules from other rules? And again, why in the world would you suggest using the complicated, multi-motion process you suggest using, especially since you don't think it will work?

Sorry about that. 😀 I simply don't understand this at all. When such questions are asked, why not suggest moving to suspend the rules which interfere with prohibiting any amendment? Why do you see a need to suggest doing it in your extraordinarily convoluted solution?

For purposes of this discussion let's take for granted that, if a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate is the immediately pending question when a motion is made and adopted ordering the previous question (no matter in what form), this motion to limit or extend the limits of debate will once again become the immediately pending question. I understand that even this is disputed, but to reach the more complicated question it must be assumed to be correct. The question as I understand it is this: If the previous question is ordered on all pending questions when a main motion, a motion to amend the main motion, and a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate are pending, and the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate is then adopted, what effect, if any, will this have on the amendability of the pending motion to amend. As I think I indicated in the earlier thread, in my opinion the adoption of a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate, which requires a two-thirds vote, is sufficient to supersede any part of a previously adopted order with which it conflicts. As a consequence, it is certainly possible that this may lead to a situation in which a pending main motion (or motion to amend, etc.) may be debatable but not amendable. I do not know why Mr. Elsman considers this to be an "unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation". The simplest response to the question originally asked is to move to suspend the rules which interfere with prohibiting any amendment of the motion Guest Nick has in mind. Such a motion can be made either before or after this motion has been introduced. I think the reason why Mr. Elswood suggested his second, extremely convoluted solution to the question asked may simply have been to raise this contested issue once again.

Many thanks for providing this. In reviewing this thread, it appears that what I said in my penultimate response may rightly be interpreted as meaning what Mr. Elsman says it means. Offhand, I'm inclined to doubt that this is what I really meant to say, so this is going to require some thought on my part. I promise to return and post more after I have had a chance to think about it.

In this case you can ignore the "divergence of opinions" which you rightly say is reflected in this discussion. You originally asked: "What vote is needed now to skip a few tail-end agenda items to adjourn? Simple majority or two-thirds majority?" Mr. Martin's immediate response was: "Generally, a majority vote. A 2/3 vote would be required if a specific time is provided for adjournment and that time has not been reached." The differing opinions all related to the second sentence of this response, which shouldn't concern you at all because it has no application to your situation. (Psst. Just between you and me, that second sentence was and is entirely accurate, but don't tell anybody or you will set off another firestorm. 😃)

I'm afraid that I don't follow what you are saying here because it seems to me that "...at [...] o'clock" means "...at [...] o'clock", and any difference in meaning will be due to the context in which this phrase is found.

Please provide a link to this topic to which you refer.

In your original post you said this: "At the start of the meeting, Chair got the agenda voted on and approved. What vote is needed now to skip a few tail-end agenda items to adjourn?" The discussion became a bit complicated when the assumption was made that the last item on this agenda was Adjournment. Was this the case?

Yes, they could do this, or instead of doing this they could all get up and go home. None of this refutes what I have said concerning what the rules in RONR now say.

I think the motion to adjourn is in order and that a majority vote will be sufficient to adopt it. The adoption of a motion such as the one described in 15:19(b) does not mandate that debate continue until the time prescribed for closing debate. It simply orders that debate shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time.

This may be one way of putting it, although I don't think it is entirely accurate. RONR refers to items on an agenda as "subjects" (41:58), and specifically to adjournment as a "subject" (41:59). The fact is that, unlike recesses, there can be only one adjournment of a meeting, and if an agenda has been adopted setting the time for that adjournment, any incidental main motion attempting to schedule an earlier time will be out of order unless the motion is phrased in such a way as to constitute a motion to amend the adopted agenda, and such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption. A majority vote will not suffice (41:63).

This response was based upon my belief that you were referring to the sentence with which I disagreed.

Delete it.

I would be interested in learning a bit more about the reasoning behind this distinction you seem to be drawing between the vote required for adoption of subsidiary improper motions and incidental main motions to adjourn prior to a time already set for adjournment in an adopted agenda. In this connection, I think you will agree that: 1. If a time for adjournment is set in an adopted agenda, that adjournment has been made an order of the day, and will constitute either a special order or a general order as those terms are defined in RONR. 2. An order of the day created by the adoption of an agenda cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set except by suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote, since an affirmative vote adopting an agenda cannot be reconsidered. 3. If an incidental main motion is made to amend the previously adopted agenda to change the time set for adjournment, adoption of such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. A majority vote will not suffice. All three of these statements are clearly set forth in 41:40-42, 41:58-59, 41:63

I agree with the first sentence, but not with the second.

My understanding of the facts in the instant case is that the time fixed for adjournment was contained in an adopted agenda. An affirmative vote to adopt an agenda may not be reconsidered.

The authorship team has not as yet addressed this question.

As I have previously noted, in my opinion Table II, Motion 3 is in error in this respect. 21:3 tells us that when a time for adjourning has already been established, a motion to adjourn is treated just as any other incidental main motion, and 10:8(7)(c) tells us that a two-thirds vote is required for the adoption of such a motion since it has the effect of changing something already adopted. 21:14 seems rather clearly to relate only to a motion to adjourn which is made during a meeting when another meeting has previously been scheduled for the same session.