Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'postponed'.
Found 2 results
Apparently I have stumbled (if I were a college graduate, I would say "researched") upon early historian Jonathan Elliot's narrative of the proceedings of the US Constitutional Convention of 1787 ( http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/0601_1787/ ). In the recounting (not counting again, college graduates!) of the events of Friday, June 1st 1787, the following appears (quoted material in italics, if I can get it to work): Mr. WILSON moved that the executive consist of a single person. Mr. C. PINCKNEY seconded the motion, so as to read “that a national executive, to consist of a single person, be instituted.”... Mr. Wilson’s motion for a single magistrate was postponed by common consent, the committee seeming unprepared for any decision on it, and the first part of the clause agreed to, viz., “that a national executive be instituted.” 84 Is this a description of current parliamentary procedure, as codified in RONR, or somewhat different, please?
At the preceding meeting, a main motion being debated was properly postponed to the current meeting. It is taken up at the proper time in the meeting. With regard to debate, is the "clock" regarding the number of times a member may speak on the motion reset, or should a tally have been kept from the previous meeting as to the number of times each member has already spoken on the motion?