jstackpo Posted December 6, 2015 at 09:44 PM Report Share Posted December 6, 2015 at 09:44 PM [That's a cryptic title. Sorry - here's what it means...] Meeting agenda has been adopted with clearly stated time limits for consideration of particular items of business. (Adopted by 2/3, since rights are limited) Debate, with amendments and what all, going hot and heavy on Agenda item C, which has (see first sentence) an overall time limit for consideration. During the discussion, time runs out so the president interupts and says, in effect: "Time's up, that's it. We will now vote on [the pending motion]... All those...[interruption!]..." Question: it is proper for somone to leap us as indicated, (before the voting actually starts, cf. p. 408) and move to extend the time for debate - p. 191? I think so, since it is just a suspension of the rules with the usual 2/3 vote requirement; elswhere on the forum others have said "no, not proper", well, one other anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 7, 2015 at 12:44 AM Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 12:44 AM Question: it is proper for somone to leap us as indicated, (before the voting actually starts, cf. p. 408) and move to extend the time for debate - p. 191? Yes, it's certainly proper. RONR explicitly says so. "When the assigned time for taking up a topic in an agenda arrives, the chair announces that fact. Then he puts to a vote any pending questions without allowing further debate, unless someone immediately moves to lay the question on the table, postpone it, or refer it to a committee. If any of these subsidiary motions are moved, they are likewise put to a vote, together with any amendment to them, without debate. Besides recognizing these subsidiary motions, the chair also should recognize a motion to extend the time for considering the pending question, if such a motion is made. While an extension under these conditions is seldom desirable and is often unfair to the next topic, it is sometimes necessary, and a motion for the extension can be adopted without debate by a two-thirds vote (see also 18)." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 373, emphasis added) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted December 7, 2015 at 07:32 AM Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 07:32 AM ...; elswhere on the forum others have said "no, not proper", well, one other anyway. What was his rationale? (A thread link will do, or the topic title, or the name of the original poster, or his social security number (slightly higher in Canada), or the date and time of the final post. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 7, 2015 at 08:54 AM Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 08:54 AM He didn't say, here, posting #12. (And was promptly corrected by Josh.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:27 PM Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:27 PM He didn't say, here, posting #12. (And was promptly corrected by Josh.) But John, what, then, is different, to prompt the question here, from what was determined on that referred thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:47 PM Report Share Posted December 7, 2015 at 11:47 PM But John, what, then, is different, to prompt the question here, from what was determined on that referred thread?This thread was posted before I replied to the other thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.