Chair's ability to divide question

[woboot100]

On page 266 of the Tenth Edition there is a reference,but not a clear statement, to a chair's ability to divide a question on his/her own by saying that, essentially, we will now debate this part of this longer motion. Is this stated anyplace more clearly and directly? 

[Bruce Lages]

What you are asking about is actually the process of considering by paragraph or seriatim, which is covered in RONR, 11th ed. starting on p. 276. On p. 278, it is stated that "The chair, on his own initiative, can apply this method to any elaborate proposition susceptible to such treatment, unless he thinks the assembly wishes to act on the question as a whole". The same statement is found in the 10th ed. on p. 268.

[jstackpo]

What p. 266 (10th) and p.276 (11th) are saying, in effect, is that the chair can (implicitly) suggest or propose going at the (long) motion seriatim.  In every case I have ever heard of this was such an obviously correct move that there was no objection so it looked as though the chair was deciding for the association all alone.  I suppose, unlikely to be sure, the assembly could not want to use seriatim and could point-of-order the chair's assumption of the motion to do so.   (A reason for that might be that the main motion seemed to be so likely to pass as is that the assembly didn't want to use up time going through the motion part by part, in spite of what the chairman thought.)

[Timothy]

According to page 280, if a member wishes to handle it as a whole after the chair suggests consideration by paragraph, the member should obtain the floor and make a motion to consider it as a whole. This is not the same as a point of order.

[jstackpo]

Ah, but if the chair doesn't explicitly "suggest" but just proceeds to invoke seriatim on his own, the a point of order is called for, since the chair is violating rules.

[Timothy]

I think you're making up a situation that can't happen. If he says, "we'll handle this a paragraph at a time. Is there any debate for paragraph 1?" a member could obtain the floor for debate and make the motion, "I move that we consider the motion as a whole." For that matter, it may not be until they've considered a few paragraphs that they decide it would be better to handle it as a whole.

[woboot100]

Well, here's the issue. I am in the middle of contract negotiations. In 2008 and 2009, our administration presented us massive contracts to debate. Most people simply said "who wants to read this thing, we'll vote yes". Now, oddly, our contracts are very clear that contracts are ratified in regular assemblies through regular parliamentary procedures. Now I am pretty respected and took the chair position precisely to stop a stampede this time but I need to avoid motions to divide since they will only exhaust the patience of the assembled multitude. So I need to do it myself.

[Bruce Lages]

As I noted in post #2 above, it is your perogative as the chair to assume that an 'elaborate proposition' (which seems to be an apt description of a contract) will be considered section by section (seriatim) and proceed on that basis - unless a member moves to consider the contract as a whole. The chair would not have the authority to deny that motion.

 

As for the motion to divide the question, first, be aware that there are important differences between division of the question and consider seriatim. You might want to review those two sections (sections 27 and 28 in RONR, 11th ed.). Then consider that RONR does not grant the chair the authority to deny a motion to divide the question either.

[mikalac]

On page 266 of the Tenth Edition there is a reference,but not a clear statement, to a chair's ability to divide a question on his/her own by saying that, essentially, we will now debate this part of this longer motion. Is this stated anyplace more clearly and directly? 

Seems I missed something important in my fledgling study of Robert. I had the impression that the chair could not make any motions; he could only "entertain a motion", hoping that some member would take the hint and make one. However, Division of a Question is a motion. What am I missing here?

 

Norm

[woboot100]

Hmmm, on one hand, I am glad to find that I have explicit authority to do this seriatim should I wish to. The issue of "dividing the question" was my own way of saying this and has caused some confusion. My officers are aware that they may have to motion to divide the question given that the main motion will quite likely be over 100 pages long and very legalistic.

 

Our administration got away with this tactic in 2008 and 2009 since people just threw up their hands and accepted it rather than wade through such a package. Under our rules, though, it needs 2/3rds of those present to pass and maybe my officers can "whip" enough votes to avoid cloture.

[Timothy]

Seems I missed something important in my fledgling study of Robert. I had the impression that the chair could not make any motions; he could only "entertain a motion", hoping that some member would take the hint and make one. However, Division of a Question is a motion. What am I missing here?

 

Norm

 

If the chair makes the decision whether to consider seriatim or as a whole, it isn't a motion. However, if someone decides they don't like which the chair picked, they can make a motion to use the other and the decision of the assembly is what is used.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Hmm... The issue of "dividing the question" was my own way of saying this and has caused some confusion. My officers are aware that they may have to motion to divide the question ..

 

No no no.  To divide a question is to separate a motion that has more than one part into some separate parts, which are considered separately.  Do you really want to -- do you really think you can -- divide up the contract and vote to approve some parts and reject others?  That's what dividing the question would do.

 

(If the obscure word "seriatim" is giving you or some of your members trouble, the other name for that section in RONR is "by paragraph."  Simpler, eh?)

[woboot100]

No no no.  To divide a question is to separate a motion that has more than one part into some separate parts, which are considered separately.  Do you really want to -- do you really think you can -- divide up the contract and vote to approve some parts and reject others?  That's what dividing the question would do.

 

(If the obscure word "seriatim" is giving you or some of your members trouble, the other name for that section in RONR is "by paragraph."  Simpler, eh?)

Yes, yes, yes . . . I most definitely DO want to divide the motion IF it is required and, if some parts of the contract do not get approved, return it to the administration or better yet force it to a conference committee as smoldering wreckage. If I can bring this administration down, so much the better. As to understanding the word **seriatim** I have been conducting meetings for decades, have served as the parliamentarian for a major labor organization. and know my job well. Labor negotiations are a blood sport and I am angling to stop the blood-letting before it gets started. An enormous number of livelihoods are resting on my ability to slow things down and force consideration. I just could not locate the precise page I wanted so I could pdf it for the membership. I hate to sound testy, but not everyone who asks a question here is a neophyte.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Yes, yes, yes . . . I most definitely DO want to divide the motion IF it is required and, if some parts of the contract do not get approved, return it to the administration or better yet force it to a conference committee as smoldering wreckage....

 

Ooo.  I would not have thought this would be feasible.  I would think that the question to be decided by the assembly would be "Shall we accept this contract (or reject it)," or words to that effect.  But you know your situation and we on the Internet do not, so good luck.

 

...  As to understanding the word **seriatim** I have been conducting meetings for decades, have served as the parliamentarian for a major labor organization. and know my job well....

 

OK.  This was not clear to me, and at least, say, to Bruce Lages (post 8); and I still don't see you clearly distinguishing between breaking a question into parts -- in this instance, completely approving some parts of a contract while completely rejecting other parts -- and simply (?) considering the whole question, the contract as submitted, gradually, paragraph by paragraph, before finally addressing the full issue, entire contract.  But then, you also know your credentials and experience and we on the Internet do not, so again, good luck.

[Timothy]

Yes, yes, yes . . . I most definitely DO want to divide the motion IF it is required and, if some parts of the contract do not get approved, return it to the administration or better yet force it to a conference committee as smoldering wreckage. If I can bring this administration down, so much the better. As to understanding the word **seriatim** I have been conducting meetings for decades, have served as the parliamentarian for a major labor organization. and know my job well. Labor negotiations are a blood sport and I am angling to stop the blood-letting before it gets started. An enormous number of livelihoods are resting on my ability to slow things down and force consideration. I just could not locate the precise page I wanted so I could pdf it for the membership. I hate to sound testy, but not everyone who asks a question here is a neophyte.

 

Like Nancy, I really don't think this is possible because ultimately there is one signature page on the contract and the organization is making the decision of whether to put signatures on that page or leave it blank. The purpose of dividing a question is not to serve as the tool to appease one member's anger. 

[Dan Honemann]

 I have been conducting meetings for decades, have served as the parliamentarian for a major labor organization. and know my job well.

 

Unfortunately, nothing in posts 1 and 7 would give anyone this impression.

[Josh Martin]

Seems I missed something important in my fledgling study of Robert. I had the impression that the chair could not make any motions; he could only "entertain a motion", hoping that some member would take the hint and make one. However, Division of a Question is a motion. What am I missing here?

 

The chair (if a member) can make motions, but should refrain from doing so (except in committees and small boards) in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality. "Entertaining a motion" is a fig leaf that should be avoided, as it is often apparent that the chair supports the motion he is hinting at, and thus this defeats the purpose of the chair refraining from making motions in the first place. If it is not appropriate for the chair to "assume" a motion (see below), it is also not appropriate for him to "entertain" the motion.

 

In certain cases, however, the chair may "assume" a motion, or even take an action on his own authority (if there is no objection), when the purpose is not to express the chair's opinion but to facilitate the conduct of business. See FAQ #1 and Official Interpretation 2007-1 for more information.

 

Under our rules, though, it needs 2/3rds of those present to pass and maybe my officers can "whip" enough votes to avoid cloture.

 

"Cloture" is not a term used in RONR.

 

Yes, yes, yes . . . I most definitely DO want to divide the motion IF it is required and, if some parts of the contract do not get approved, return it to the administration or better yet force it to a conference committee as smoldering wreckage. If I can bring this administration down, so much the better. As to understanding the word **seriatim** I have been conducting meetings for decades, have served as the parliamentarian for a major labor organization. and know my job well. Labor negotiations are a blood sport and I am angling to stop the blood-letting before it gets started. An enormous number of livelihoods are resting on my ability to slow things down and force consideration. I just could not locate the precise page I wanted so I could pdf it for the membership. I hate to sound testy, but not everyone who asks a question here is a neophyte.

 

I think seriatim consideration is likely a more advisable procedure than division of the question in the case of a contract. I'm not sure the latter would even be in order, since it does not seem practical to adopt bits and pieces of a contract. It seems more advisable to debate and amend each section of the contract separately, but to take a single vote on the contract (as amended) as a whole at the end.

 

As noted, you may suggest seriatim consideration on your own initiative, but if a member disagrees he could move that the contract be considered as a whole. Majority rules. I would note, however, that debate and amendment is still in order under consideration as a whole. It's just that such debate and amendments will be jumping all over the place rather than moving through the sections in order. Only by swiftly adopting the Previous Question (which requires a 2/3 vote) could they force a straight "up or down" vote on the contract.