Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Suspending a rule for the session -debate


J. J.

Recommended Posts

I would say to Dan that there may be more to deliberating than debate. :)

The closest reason that I could come to for saying that an IMM to suspend the rules and prohibit debate would be that it violates a basic right of an individual member (to debate). I could make the same argument about someone (e.g. the maker) moving the previous question immediately after the motion was stated.

Edgar, as for the photo, I have a similar one on my wall. slightly higher than the invitation to two presidential inaugurals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If motion #31 on tinted page 33 is adopted, can it be suspended by a majority vote?

No, I don't think so (although I think I need to think more about it).

Having given this question of Tim's the additional thought I thought I needed to give it, I have concluded that the correct answer is yes, if motion #31 on tinted page 33 is adopted, it can be suspended by a majority vote. I don't know now why I had any doubt about it. :)

Generally speaking, rules that are intended to be in force only during the session at which they are adopted (such as convention standing rules) may be suspended at any time by a majority vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having given this question of Tim's the additional thought I thought I needed to give it, I have concluded that the correct answer is yes, if motion #31 on tinted page 33 is adopted, it can be suspended by a majority vote. I don't know now why I had any doubt about it. :)

Generally speaking, rules that are intended to be in force only during the session at which they are adopted (such as convention standing rules) may be suspended at any time by a majority vote.

Perhaps you had to think about it due to p. 266, l. 5 . . . which would look much better if it were adorned with the last sentence of your post. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an assembly that is not a convention, would am incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the duration of the session behave the same way? Could the effects of that motion also be suspended by majority vote?

Once again, I think you need to be more specific. What is the exact wording of this "incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the duration of the session" to which you refer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, I think you need to be more specific. What is the exact wording of this "incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the duration of the session" to which you refer?

Well, I'm trying to ask in the general case.

An IMM "that the rules be suspended so that no subsidiary motions except for postpone indefinitely be allowed during this session," would be an example. That is a bit modified from Parliamentary Practice (pp. 19-20), which envisions this as being offered as a resolution, but notes that it "practically suspends the rules."

Conversely, would the following main motion be in order: "Resolved, that debate be prohibited on all motions during this session." (I would note that such a motion would be debatable itself and would require a 2/3 vote.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm trying to ask in the general case.

An IMM "that the rules be suspended so that no subsidiary motions except for postpone indefinitely be allowed during this session," would be an example. That is a bit modified from Parliamentary Practice (pp. 19-20), which envisions this as being offered as a resolution, but notes that it "practically suspends the rules."

Conversely, would the following main motion be in order: "Resolved, that debate be prohibited on all motions during this session." (I would note that such a motion would be debatable itself and would require a 2/3 vote.)

As best I can determine, these questions have been answered.

As to the first, the proper motion would be "I move that during this session no subsidiary motion except Postpone Indefinitely be allowed." The introductory wording "that the rules be suspended so that" is superfluous and misleading, in that it masks the fact that what is actually being proposed is the adoption of a rule which is intended to be in effect for the duration of the session only. Such a motion requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption, with or without previous notice. If adopted, it may be suspended by a majority vote.

The second ("Resolved, that debate be prohibited on all motions during this session.") would appear to be in proper form, and like the first, requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption, and if adopted, may be suspended by a majority vote. Also like the first, however, it is likely, under most circumstances, to be ruled out of order as being absurd. Why not stick to some sort of reasonable proposal for this kind of discussion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a good reference for this in RONR? I am at a loss to find it, except for the special case of convention standing rules, which may not be such a special case after all?

As best I can determine, there is no specific statement concerning the vote required to suspend rules of the sort referred to on page 103, lines 26-31, and on page 620, lines 1-9, (rules placed in effect only for the duration of the current session) other than the statement on pages 620-21 with reference to suspension of convention standing rules.

Please understand that the opinions which I have expressed concerning the vote required to suspend rules of this sort are my own, and are not necessarily in accord with the views of any one or more of my colleagues. For some background, however, I would refer you to PL, particularly the sentence which begins at the bottom of page 157, and then to what is said on page 367 (pay particular attention to the sentence in the middle of that page which begins with “Rules that are intended to be in force only during the session at which they are adopted…”, and then the paragraph that follows).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please understand that the opinions which I have expressed concerning the vote required to suspend rules of this sort are my own, and are not necessarily in accord with the views of any one or more of my colleagues. For some background, however, I would refer you to PL, particularly the sentence which begins at the bottom of page 157, and then to what is said on page 367 (pay particular attention to the sentence in the middle of that page which begins with “Rules that are intended to be in force only during the session at which they are adopted…”, and then the paragraph that follows).

Sounds like JJ's post could lead to somthing being added to the 'to do' list for the next edition. :) But as this has not come up very often (at all in my experience) I suppose it is not pressing. If it does, suspending by a majority vote does seem to be the best interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like JJ's post could lead to somthing being added to the 'to do' list for the next edition. :) But as this has not come up very often (at all in my experience) I suppose it is not pressing. If it does, suspending by a majority vote does seem to be the best interpretation.

Well, far from being absurd, Gen. Robert used it as an example.

I don't disagree with Dan, in fact I think he is correct, but it would be difficult to base this in text. And yes, I have seen situations where a main motion would "practically" suspend the rules and where both the chair an maker of the motion realized it, when explained, and agreed that a 2/3 vote would be needed. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum up a bit, I think that the answer to the question originally asked is maybe yes, maybe no, depending upon a proper framing of the motion (it should be framed not as a motion to suspend the rules, but rather as a motion to create a rule to be in effect only for the duration of the current session), and also, of course, the particular circumstances existing at the time.

The interesting, tangential questions posed by Tim Wynn in post #7 and post #15 find answers both here in post #9 and post #31 (see also #36 and #38), and on page 3 of HPL. Publication of HPL is expected any day now (just as soon as I remember what is on the first two pages). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... and on page 3 of HPL. Publication of HPL is expected any day now (just as soon as I remember what is on the first two pages). :)

I always havae to remind myself that by "HPL," Mr Honemann does not mean Howard Phillips Lovecraft, which is who it stands for in less rarefied intellectual strata.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...