What exactly is this motion's status?

[George Mervosh]

David Foulkes, as he often does, gets me thinking. He correctly notes:

As far as I know, nothing gets automatically tabled

What is the status of the 2PM motion mentioned on p. 358, line 26ff when the next motion interrupts because the 2PM motion hasn't been finally disposed of? Is it pending, but not immediately pending, thereby violating the no 2 main motions at the same time rule, or is it on the table, or where is it? RONR doesn't say.

Does it matter?

What if the assembly immediately adjourned after final disposition of the 3PM motion, before the presiding officer puts the 2PM question back in play? Does the rule on p. 347 a) apply to it?

[Shmuel Gerber]

What is the status of the 2PM motion mentioned on p. 358, line 26ff when the next motion interrupts because the 2PM motion hasn't been finally disposed of? Is it pending, but not immediately pending, thereby violating the no 2 main motions at the same time rule, or is it on the table, or where is it? RONR doesn't say.

Does it matter?

What if the assembly immediately adjourned after final disposition of the 3PM motion, before the presiding officer puts the 2PM question back in play? Does the rule on p. 347 a) apply to it?

It's a special order whose consideration has been interrupted by a matter of higher priority and that has not yet been finally disposed of -- although it has, automatically, become temporarily disposed of and remains within the control of the assembly, at least until the meeting is adjourned.

It is not part of any pending series of motions, but it is pending in the sense that it will be automatically resumed when all matters of a higher priority have been disposed of.

At the next meeting, assuming that meeting is within a quarterly time interval (and none of the members' terms have expired, as may happen in a board, etc.), it will be taken up as the first item under Special Orders, as stated under item (a) on page 345.

[Rob Elsman]

It's a special order whose consideration has been interrupted by a matter of higher priority and that has not yet been finally disposed of -- although it has, automatically, become temporarily disposed of and remains within the control of the assembly, at least until the meeting is adjourned.

It is not part of any pending series of motions, but it is pending in the sense that it will be automatically resumed when all matters of a higher priority have been disposed of.

At the next meeting, assuming that meeting is within a quarterly time interval (and none of the members' terms have expired, as may happen in a board, etc.), it will be taken up as the first item under Special Orders, as stated under item (a) on page 345.

I don't agree that the interrupted motion should be classified as temporarily disposed of. There are exactly four ways a motion becomes temporarily disposed of. These are listed on p. 88. The consideration of the motion has simply been interrupted, as you note. Stop while you're ahead.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I don't agree that the interrupted motion should be classified as temporarily disposed of. There are exactly four ways a motion becomes temporarily disposed of. These are listed on p. 88. The consideration of the motion has simply been interrupted, as you note. Stop while you're ahead.

So, suppose that at the next meeting, during "Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees" in the order of business -- which, of course, precedes "Special Orders" -- the president makes a report in which he recommends something that, if adopted, would conflict with the adoption of the special order whose consideration was interrupted. If a member makes a motion to carry out the recommended action, is that motion in order? If not, why not?

[Rob Elsman]

So, suppose that at the next meeting, during "Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees" in the order of business -- which, of course, precedes "Special Orders" -- the president makes a report in which he recommends something that, if adopted, would conflict with the adoption of the special order whose consideration was interrupted. If a member makes a motion to carry out the recommended action, is that motion in order? If not, why not?

The proper motion to make is Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the special order out of its proper place in the order of business. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 351-353.

[Rob Elsman]

So, suppose that at the next meeting, during "Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees" in the order of business -- which, of course, precedes "Special Orders" -- the president makes a report in which he recommends something that, if adopted, would conflict with the adoption of the special order whose consideration was interrupted. If a member makes a motion to carry out the recommended action, is that motion in order? If not, why not?

We can safely say that the motion arising out of the president's report is not out of order on account of the rule in RONR (10th ed.), p. 107, l. 15 through p. 108, l. 8.

[Shmuel Gerber]

We can safely say that the motion arising out of the president's report is not out of order on account of the rule in RONR (10th ed.), p. 107, l. 15 through p. 108, l. 8.

But you're not even attempting to argue that the motion is in order.

What we can more safely say is that the interruption of business by a special order does not violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law stated on page 56, lines 20-25: 'Only one question can be considered at a time; once a motion is before the assembly, it must be adopted or rejected by a vote, or the assembly must take action disposing of the question in some other way, before any other business (except certain matters called "privileged questions") can be brought up.'

Even though this situation is not explicitly mentioned on pages 107-108, the principle stated on pages 72-73 that "While a question is temporarily disposed of (by any of several methods described in this and later chapters) but is not finally settled, no similar or conflicting motion whose adoption would restrict the assembly in acting on the first question can be introduced" is applicable.

The fact is, at the next meeting, the motion of the 2 PM special order is actually one that has been made a special order for a later time (i.e., the present meeting), so that the rules can be suspended and it can be taken up, as you've suggested, and as included on page 107, lines 26-28. That it was done implicitly (by the act of adjournment) rather than explicitly is not relevant.

If you want to talk about the interrupted motion's status before adjournment, you might have a better argument to make, but I believe it is much more useful to simply think about it as being in the same category as any other business that was temporarily but not finally disposed of.

[Dan Honemann]

George, I think you will find that the 11th edition deals with this question rather nicely, but in the meantime you can rely entirely on Shmuel's response.

[George Mervosh]

George, I think you will find that the 11th edition deals with this question rather nicely, but in the meantime you can rely entirely on Shmuel's response.

I always rely on SG's advice, that's why I posted it here. But I'm glad the 11th deals with it as well.

[Rob Elsman]

But you're not even attempting to argue that the motion is in order.

What we can more safely say is that the interruption of business by a special order does not violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law stated on page 56, lines 20-25: 'Only one question can be considered at a time; once a motion is before the assembly, it must be adopted or rejected by a vote, or the assembly must take action disposing of the question in some other way, before any other business (except certain matters called "privileged questions") can be brought up.'

Even though this situation is not explicitly mentioned on pages 107-108, the principle stated on pages 72-73 that "While a question is temporarily disposed of (by any of several methods described in this and later chapters) but is not finally settled, no similar or conflicting motion whose adoption would restrict the assembly in acting on the first question can be introduced" is applicable.

The fact is, at the next meeting, the motion of the 2 PM special order is actually one that has been made a special order for a later time (i.e., the present meeting), so that the rules can be suspended and it can be taken up, as you've suggested, and as included on page 107, lines 26-28. That it was done implicitly (by the act of adjournment) rather than explicitly is not relevant.

If you want to talk about the interrupted motion's status before adjournment, you might have a better argument to make, but I believe it is much more useful to simply think about it as being in the same category as any other business that was temporarily but not finally disposed of.

You are right. I am not attempting to argue that the motion arising out of the report is in order, because the item of business has already been made a special order, which cannot be taken up until the Special Orders heading has been reached in the order of business without first suspending the rules that interfere for this purpose.

[Guest Nancy N.]

You are right. I am not attempting to argue that the motion arising out of the report is in order, because the item of business has already been made a special order, which cannot be taken up until the Special Orders heading has been reached in the order of business without first suspending the rules that interfere for this purpose.

Well, then, Rob, what do you think happened to it when it was abandoned?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, then, Rob, what do you think happened to it when it was abandoned?

If "it" here refers to the interrupted 2 PM special order, it seems to me that he says that it is an "item of business" that has "been made a special order, which cannot be taken up until the Special Orders heading has been reached in the order of business without first suspending the rules that interfere for this purpose."

Can't quarrel with that.

[Shmuel Gerber]

You are right. I am not attempting to argue that the motion arising out of the report is in order, because the item of business has already been made a special order, which cannot be taken up until the Special Orders heading has been reached in the order of business without first suspending the rules that interfere for this purpose.

But it's not the same item of business; it's a different one, which would conflict. For example, the special order involved spending all of an available sum of money on athletic equipment. The president recommends spending that money on purchasing books. These are different motions, either one of which could be adopted if the other one were to be rejected (or ignored).

[Rob Elsman]

But it's not the same item of business; it's a different one, which would conflict. For example, the special order involved spending all of an available sum of money on athletic equipment. The president recommends spending that money on purchasing books. These are different motions, either one of which could be adopted if the other one were to be rejected (or ignored).

I like cutting and pasting as much as the next guy:

The proper motion to make is Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the special order out of its proper place in the order of business. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 351-353.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I like cutting and pasting as much as the next guy:

The proper motion to make is Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the special order out of its proper place in the order of business. See RONR (10th ed.), pp. 351-353.

Why? The president couldn't care less about the special order, other than to see his recommendation adopted first.

[Rob Elsman]

Why? The president couldn't care less about the special order, other than to see his recommendation adopted first.

The president's caring has nothing to do with it.

[Dan Honemann]

But it's not the same item of business; it's a different one, which would conflict. For example, the special order involved spending all of an available sum of money on athletic equipment. The president recommends spending that money on purchasing books. These are different motions, either one of which could be adopted if the other one were to be rejected (or ignored).

Shmuel, it seems that Rob agrees that the motion arising out of the president's report is not in order, he just can't bring himself to clearly state the reason why, which is, of course, because it conflicts with one (the interrupted 2 PM special order) which is still within the control of the society because not finally disposed of.