Guest Curt Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:47 PM Would it generally be considered improper or not in the spirit of Roberts Rules to "call the question" immediately, i.e. to prevent any discussion or debate or discussion at all? I understand that the 2/3 vote requirement protects against gross abuse, but isn't "calling the question" intended to be used to end debate because it appears there has been sufficient opportunity for pros and cons and further debate will not really be productive. Is it respectful to have the attitude of "we have the votes so lets prevent any debate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:57 PM Would it generally be considered improper or not in the spirit of Roberts Rules to "call the question" immediately, i.e. to prevent any discussion or debate or discussion at all? I understand that the 2/3 vote requirement protects against gross abuse, but isn't "calling the question" intended to be used to end debate because it appears there has been sufficient opportunity for pros and cons and further debate will not really be productive. Is it respectful to have the attitude of "we have the votes so lets prevent any debate". "A member may both speak in debate and conclude by offering a secondary motion, which is a particular application of the principle that a member having been recognized for any legitimate purpose has the floor for all legitimate purposes." RONR (11th ed.), p. 386. Yes, a member, properly recognized and assigned the floor, can move for the previous question assuming it's in order at the time it's made. Be mindful that members just can't "call the question" from their seats, and the maker of the motion is afforded the first opportunity to speak, but even he may move for the previous question without speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 12:59 PM "Improper"? No. "Not in the spirit"? Tell me what "in the spirit" means and I might be able to answer - although I suspect my answer will be "No". "respectful"? -- that's for you to say. "We have the votes so let's get on with it" certainly leads to shorter meetings - a good thing. I agree it does make some folks uncomfortable, and they adopt special rules of order that (typically) prohibit the previous question until both sides have had some say, but that is not an RONR rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:06 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 01:06 PM ...And if the member who made the motion wants it adopted without any debate (even from himself) he could move to Suspend the Rules and adopt [insert motion here]. A vote would be taken immediately and if adopted by a 2/3 vote the motion would be adopted. However, if the motion to Suspend the Rules wasn't adopted the original motion would need to be considered the normal way (debate, amendments, etc). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted July 11, 2014 at 03:15 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 03:15 PM There is nothing strictly wrong with a member making a motion to Call the Question. However, the group is free to vote down the motion and continue debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:41 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:41 PM ...And if the member who made the motion wants it adopted without any debate (even from himself) he could move to Suspend the Rules and adopt [insert motion here]. A vote would be taken immediately and if adopted by a 2/3 vote the motion would be adopted. However, if the motion to Suspend the Rules wasn't adopted the original motion would need to be considered the normal way (debate, amendments, etc). Pg. 261 ll.22 "The object of this motion is to suspend the rules applicable to the assembly...that interfere with the proposed action during a meeting." Does that not imply that since adoption of the motion could happen without suspending the rules that it would be improper to suspend the rules in order to adopt the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:44 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:44 PM Pg. 261 ll.22 "The object of this motion is to suspend the rules applicable to the assembly...that interfere with the proposed action during a meeting." Does that not imply that since adoption of the motion could happen without suspending the rules that it would be improper to suspend the rules in order to adopt the motion? See p. 266: "When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is:MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) This is what Chris is referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:54 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 04:54 PM In that case, RONR seems to be in conflict with itself. Though we could conclude that though the statement on 266 is correct, it doesn't matter because the object was defined on page 261 as something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:10 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:10 PM In that case, RONR seems to be in conflict with itself. Though we could conclude that though the statement on 266 is correct, it doesn't matter because the object was defined on page 261 as something different. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:56 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 05:56 PM I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here at all. Since "the object" defined on page 261 is to suspend rules that prevent the adoption of a motion, then there can be no such time "when the object is to adopt a motion without debate" because debate does not prevent the adoption of a motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 11, 2014 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 06:07 PM Yes, but debate could delay the adoption of the motion (as could postponing it, referring it to a committee, tabling it, all of which are improper once previous question is in force, or the noted suspension of the rules) and such delays could be significant in some contexts. Also debate could prevent adoption if the debate convinced enough people to vote against the motion. Perhaps avoiding that outcome is what the proponents of "suspend and adopt" have in mind. Sneaky, but not improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 11, 2014 at 06:52 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 06:52 PM I could see that, if there is a fixed time to adjourn or something else that could cause the motion to fail if it is delayed by debate. I don't think I buy that debate should be treated as preventing adoption because it has the potential of convincing people to vote against the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 11, 2014 at 06:57 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 06:57 PM In that case, RONR seems to be in conflict with itself. No, it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 11, 2014 at 07:08 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 07:08 PM The way I view it is without the motion to Suspend the Rules there are several options a member has after the motion has been put up for consideration such as debating it, offering an amendment, moving to postpone the consideration, moving to refer it to a committee, and so on. With the motion to Suspend the Rules the proposal is the motion be adopted immediately without making use of any of the other deliberative processes normally available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 11, 2014 at 08:40 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 08:40 PM But, with the exception of postpone indefinitely, how does any of that "prevent the adoption" of the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted July 11, 2014 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 09:04 PM But, with the exception of postpone indefinitely, how does any of that "prevent the adoption" of the motion?It wouldn't. I see the purpose of the rule suspension being to eliminate the "fluff" that takes place before the vote is taken. Let me ask you (because this is something that has occurred to me) is your concern that the motion to Suspend the Rules includes "and adopt" in its language? If the motion was say "I move to Suspend the Rules and take an immediate vote on [insert motion here]" or similar language would you still have concerns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 11, 2014 at 11:48 PM Report Share Posted July 11, 2014 at 11:48 PM In terms of what RONR says about the motion to Suspend the Rules, that actually makes more sense, given that it is actually against the rules to take an immediate vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 12, 2014 at 12:50 AM Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 at 12:50 AM In terms of what RONR says about the motion to Suspend the Rules, that actually makes more sense, given that it is actually against the rules to take an immediate vote. Eh? If nobody has anything to say about or propose relative to the motion, then you can go to an immediate vote -- no rule against that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 at 12:55 AM . . . given that it is actually against the rules to take an immediate vote. But isn't that why the assembly is suspending the rule(s)? Not that I'm a big fan of suspending the rules and that I'm also violating my own rule of responding to a topic with posts in the double digits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 12, 2014 at 03:25 AM Report Share Posted July 12, 2014 at 03:25 AM But isn't that why the assembly is suspending the rule(s)? While it may be splitting hairs, there is a difference between the two motions. If the motion is to "suspend the rules and take an immediate vote" then people are voting on whether they want to take an immediate vote or not. But if the motion is to "suspend the rules and adopt," the person making the motion is attempting to attach the attributes of the motion to suspend the rules to the other motion, rather than having a legitimate need to suspend the rules in order to adopt the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 13, 2014 at 03:31 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 at 03:31 AM Since "the object" defined on page 261 is to suspend rules that prevent the adoption of a motion, then there can be no such time "when the object is to adopt a motion without debate" because debate does not prevent the adoption of a motion.What is being suspended is the rule that says that when a motion is pending, members have the right to debate and amend it. So, "suspend the rules and pass" is a fairly commonly used tool to do that all in one motion, and of course requires a 2/3 vote to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 13, 2014 at 04:29 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2014 at 04:29 AM But if the motion passes, there is no need to suspend the rules because the motion has already passed. Discussion is prohibited on the motion because discussion is prohibited on the motion to suspend the rules, not because the body voted to suspend the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.