Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Amendment of a Motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim


Josh Martin

Recommended Posts

Standard Descriptive Characteristic #6 for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim notes that the motion is amendable, however, the text does not explain what exactly this entails. Is this about amending a motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim into a motion for Consideration as a Whole? Or changing the level of detail for the seriatim consideration (i.e. debating each article vs. each section)? Or something else I haven't thought of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Standard Descriptive Characteristic #6 for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim notes that the motion is amendable, however, the text does not explain what exactly this entails. Is this about amending a motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim into a motion for Consideration as a Whole? Or changing the level of detail for the seriatim consideration (i.e. debating each article vs. each section)? Or something else I haven't thought of?

As General Robert states on page 38 of PL, a motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim "may be amended so as to consider it by articles, or sections, or in some other way." This, I think, is what you refer to as "changing the level of detail for the seriatim consideration."

I do not think it would be proper to move to amend a motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim by substituting for it a motion that the pending resolution (or whatever it is) be considered as a whole. Such an amendment appears to me to be one "that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion", or one "that would have the effect of converting one parliamentary motion into another", or both (see RONR, 11th ed., p. 138).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, if you don't mind, I'd like to deal a bit more with this motion to "consider as a whole", referred to on page 278, and especially the assertion (on ll. 12-14) that it is "governed by rules identical to those for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim." The paragraph (on p. 278) relating to this motion has remained virtually unchanged since the 7th edition, and is obviously derived from what is said in PL, at the top of page 165.

It seems to me that this motion to "consider as a whole" has extremely limited applicability, in that it is only to be used when the chair has, on his own initiative, proceeded with seriatim consideration (which, in many instances, he should do), and a member feels that the resolution (or whatever) should be considered as a whole. I assume that it can be amended by substituting for it a motion for seriatim consideration in a manner different from that suggested by the chair (by section instead of by paragraph, for example), but if adopted without having been amended in such a fashion its only effect will be to preclude any kind of seriatim consideration but not any subsequent motion or demand for division of the question.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As General Robert states on page 38 of PL, a motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim "may be amended so as to consider it by articles, or sections, or in some other way." This, I think, is what you refer to as "changing the level of detail for the seriatim consideration."

I do not think it would be proper to move to amend a motion for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim by substituting for it a motion that the pending resolution (or whatever it is) be considered as a whole. Such an amendment appears to me to be one "that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion", or one "that would have the effect of converting one parliamentary motion into another", or both (see RONR, 11th ed., p. 138).

Thanks! That makes sense, and yes, that's what I meant by "changing the level of detail for the seriatim consideration."

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Josh, if you don't mind, I'd like to deal a bit more with this motion to "consider as a whole", referred to on page 278, and especially the assertion (on ll. 12-14) that it is "governed by rules identical to those for Consideration by Paragraph or Seriatim." The paragraph (on p. 278) relating to this motion has remained virtually unchanged since the 7th edition, and is obviously derived from what is said in PL, at the top of page 165.

It seems to me that this motion to "consider as a whole" has extremely limited applicability, in that it is only to be used when the chair has, on his own initiative, proceeded with seriatim consideration (which, in many instances, he should do), and a member feels that the resolution (or whatever) should be considered as a whole. I assume that it can be amended by substituting for it a motion for seriatim consideration in a manner different from that suggested by the chair (by section instead of by paragraph, for example), but if adopted without having been amended in such a fashion its only effect will be to preclude any kind of seriatim consideration but not any subsequent motion or demand for division of the question.

I would appreciate your thoughts.

This all sounds correct to me. Consider as a Whole wouldn't be used if the motion was being considered as a whole (obviously) and wouldn't be used if an actual motion was made for seriatim consideration, as that objective can be achieved by defeating this motion (as you explain above), and it can't be moved after the society has ordered seriatim consideration. All that's left is to move it when the chair suggests seriatim consideration on his own initiative. It seems logical to conclude that it may be amended by substituting for it a motion for seriatim consideration in a manner different from that suggested by the chair, since the assembly needs some way to accomplish that objective.

As for the effect, it is certainly clear that seriatim consideration is precluded, since SDC #8 for this motion provides that this motion cannot be reconsidered. I would also agree that any subsequent motion or demand for division of the question remains in order. Although the text provides that the rules are the same as for a motion for consideration by paragraph or seriatim, SDC #8 specifically provides that division is prohibited if it has been decided to consider divisible material seriatim, which suggests that this prohibition does not apply if the assembly has ordered consideration as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Thanks! That makes sense, and yes, that's what I meant by "changing the level of detail for the seriatim consideration."

This all sounds correct to me. Consider as a Whole wouldn't be used if the motion was being considered as a whole (obviously) and wouldn't be used if an actual motion was made for seriatim consideration, as that objective can be achieved by defeating this motion (as you explain above), and it can't be moved after the society has ordered seriatim consideration. All that's left is to move it when the chair suggests seriatim consideration on his own initiative. It seems logical to conclude that it may be amended by substituting for it a motion for seriatim consideration in a manner different from that suggested by the chair, since the assembly needs some way to accomplish that objective.

As for the effect, it is certainly clear that seriatim consideration is precluded, since SDC #8 for this motion provides that this motion cannot be reconsidered. I would also agree that any subsequent motion or demand for division of the question remains in order. Although the text provides that the rules are the same as for a motion for consideration by paragraph or seriatim, SDC #8 specifically provides that division is prohibited if it has been decided to consider divisible material seriatim, which suggests that this prohibition does not apply if the assembly has ordered consideration as a whole.

Thanks for this response. 

The only other comment I would like to make at this time is that I find it somewhat disconcerting that, on page 277, we are told that "If it has been decided to consider divisible material seriatim, even if the material was divisible on the demand of a single member, it is too late to move or demand a division of the question" when, on page 619, we are also told that seriatim consideration is not applicable to a group of separate main motions being offered under one enacting motion. I suppose I should have given more thought to this back in the day. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The only other comment I would like to make at this time is that I find it somewhat disconcerting that, on page 277, we are told that "If it has been decided to consider divisible material seriatim, even if the material was divisible on the demand of a single member, it is too late to move or demand a division of the question" when, on page 619, we are also told that seriatim consideration is not applicable to a group of separate main motions being offered under one enacting motion. I suppose I should have given more thought to this back in the day. :)

OK, so which do you think it should be?

It seems to me that proposed standing rules would actually be well suited to seriatim consideration, after the chair asks if there is objection to considering the rules' adoption in gross (and any of them whose adoption is objected to are set aside to be voted on individually).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

OK, so which do you think it should be?

It seems to me that proposed standing rules would actually be well suited to seriatim consideration, after the chair asks if there is objection to considering the rules' adoption in gross (and any of them whose adoption is objected to are set aside to be voted on individually).

After the chair asks if there is objection to considering the rules' adoption in gross (and any of them whose adoption is objected to are set aside to be voted on individually), the remainder should obviously be considered in gross, and not seriatim.

In view of the fact that seriatim consideration, once begun, deprives members of the right to demand a separate vote on any one or more of a group of completely independent motions offered by a single main motion, it seems to me that such a group of motions should never be considered seriatim by the chair on his own initiative, and a motion to considerer them in such a manner, if not affirmatively agreed to by unanimous consent, should require a unanimous vote for its adoption.

The first paragraph of the section dealing with seriatim consideration tells us that a report or long motion consisting of a series of resolutions, paragraphs, articles, or sections that are not totally separate questions can be considered seriatim, and then goes on to say that distinct main motions on different subjects cannot be considered seriatim if a single member objects. Standard Characteristic 8 (to which we are referred at the end of the paragraph) tells us that, if a decision has been made to consider divisible material seriatim, even if the material was divisible on the demand of a single member, such a demand can no longer be made. I’m afraid that if the chair on his own initiative proceeds to consider divisible material seriatim unanimous consent will be presumed unless there is a prompt objection, and I don't think I care for this at all.

Perhaps another way of saying what I just said is to say that, in my opinion, the rule is (or should be) that seriatim consideration of a group of independent motions relating to completely different subjects which is offered by a single main motion is not in order, and that unanimous consent (or a unanimous vote) is required for suspension of this rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Perhaps another way of saying what I just said is to say that, in my opinion, the rule is (or should be) that seriatim consideration of a group of independent motions relating to completely different subjects which is offered by a single main motion is not in order, and that unanimous consent (or a unanimous vote) is required for suspension of this rule.

If that becomes the rule some day down the line, would a point of order still need to be timely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

If that becomes the rule some day down the line, would a point of order still need to be timely?

Well, points of order must always be timely, but yes, I think this is just another one of those situations in which a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, points of order must always be timely, but yes, I think this is just another one of those situations in which a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.  

Yes, I agree.  I'm just wondering that " if the chair on his own initiative proceeds to consider divisible material seriatim unanimous consent will be presumed unless there is a prompt objection "  won't still be true under the other wording you've suggested, though the alternate wording does appear to have some extra teeth to it?  I I have it wrong I'd appreciate any followup you care to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

Yes, I agree.  I'm just wondering that " if the chair on his own initiative proceeds to consider divisible material seriatim unanimous consent will be presumed unless there is a prompt objection "  won't still be true under the other wording you've suggested, though the alternate wording does appear to have some extra teeth to it?  I I have it wrong I'd appreciate any followup you care to offer.

Yes, it will still be true that, "if the chair on his own initiative proceeds to consider divisible material seriatim unanimous consent will be presumed unless there is a prompt objection." However, I can agree with you that, if the chair does not explain at the outset, as he should, that the pending resolution (or whatever it is) will be considered seriatim, there may be some question as to exactly when it becomes apparent that a breach of the rules is occurring and a point of order (or objection) must be raised in order to be timely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before going any further on this, I want to thank Josh and Dan (and the other participants) for the discussion. This section of the book has recently been under review by the RONR authorship team (although anything I say here represents my own view only), and I think this online discussion has been helpful.

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

After the chair asks if there is objection to considering the rules' adoption in gross (and any of them whose adoption is objected to are set aside to be voted on individually), the remainder should obviously be considered in gross, and not seriatim.

This is a bit of a tangent that we got onto because I used the term "in gross", but it's not obvious to me that if the chair is described as having stated the question on a number of items for consideration in gross, that term implies that they will not be open to debate and amendment in a manner yet to be decided -- whether as a whole, or paragraph-by-paragraph (or resolution-by-resolution), in either case a single vote being taken on all of them together.

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In view of the fact that seriatim consideration, once begun, deprives members of the right to demand a separate vote on any one or more of a group of completely independent motions offered by a single main motion, it seems to me that such a group of motions should never be considered seriatim by the chair on his own initiative . . .

. . . Standard Characteristic 8 . . . tells us that, if a decision has been made to consider divisible material seriatim, even if the material was divisible on the demand of a single member, such a demand can no longer be made. I’m afraid that if the chair on his own initiative proceeds to consider divisible material seriatim unanimous consent will be presumed unless there is a prompt objection, and I don't think I care for this at all.

I agree that the chair should not presume that there is unanimous consent for seriatim consideration of material that is divisible on the demand of a single member.

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

. . . a motion to [consider] them in such a manner, if not affirmatively agreed to by unanimous consent, should require a unanimous vote for its adoption.

The first paragraph of the section dealing with seriatim consideration tells us that a report or long motion consisting of a series of resolutions, paragraphs, articles, or sections that are not totally separate questions can be considered seriatim, and then goes on to say that distinct main motions on different subjects cannot be considered seriatim if a single member objects. . . .

Perhaps another way of saying what I just said is to say that, in my opinion, the rule is (or should be) that seriatim consideration of a group of independent motions relating to completely different subjects which is offered by a single main motion is not in order, and that unanimous consent (or a unanimous vote) is required for suspension of this rule.

Well, what the book says is "A report or long motion consisting of a series of resolutions, paragraphs, articles, or sections that are not totally separate questions can be considered by opening the different parts to debate and amendment separately, without a division of the question" (emphasis added). So this sentence is presenting a motion or procedure that is an alternative to the motion for a division of the question. However, I don't think that seriatim consideration of totally separate questions is precluded by this statement, although it is qualified as you've noted: "Several distinct main motions on different subjects cannot be considered seriatim if a single member objects (see Standard Characteristic 8, below)." This clearly implies that if no one objects, then several distinct motions on different subjects can be considered seriatim.

That leaves the question of how such unanimous consent is obtained. Maybe it's as you say, that a suspension of the rules, followed by a unanimous vote, is required. Alternatively, maybe it means that the way to object to seriatim consideration of several resolutions on different subjects is to ask that a separate vote be taken on each (or some). The chair would then be unable to present those resolutions for seriatim consideration without unanimous consent, because seriatim consideration involves taking a single vote on all of the resolutions under such consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well, what the book says is "A report or long motion consisting of a series of resolutions, paragraphs, articles, or sections that are not totally separate questions can be considered by opening the different parts to debate and amendment separately, without a division of the question" (emphasis added). So this sentence is presenting a motion or procedure that is an alternative to the motion for a division of the question. However, I don't think that seriatim consideration of totally separate questions is precluded by this statement, although it is qualified as you've noted: "Several distinct main motions on different subjects cannot be considered seriatim if a single member objects (see Standard Characteristic 8, below)." This clearly implies that if no one objects, then several distinct motions on different subjects can be considered seriatim.

Yes, there is no doubt but that a group of independant main motions relating to different subjects offered under one enacting motion can be considered seriatim if no one objects, but it seems to me that this requirement of unanimous consent is evidence of an even stronger disapproval of it than simply saying that it is not in order. Generally speaking, it takes no more than a two-thirds vote to do something that is not in order (if it can be done at all).

As previously noted, the reason for this strong disapproval is that, once an assembly has decided that a group of independant main motions offered under one enacting motion will be considered seriatim, individual members will no longer have a right to demand that any one or more of them be taken up and voted on separately. As you know, this is a valuable right which, absent seriatim consideration, can be availed of by any member, even when another member has the floor, at any time up until the vote has been taken on adopting the entire group.

11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

That leaves the question of how such unanimous consent is obtained. Maybe it's as you say, that a suspension of the rules, followed by a unanimous vote, is required. Alternatively, maybe it means that the way to object to seriatim consideration of several resolutions on different subjects is to ask that a separate vote be taken on each (or some). The chair would then be unable to present those resolutions for seriatim consideration without unanimous consent, because seriatim consideration involves taking a single vote on all of the resolutions under such consideration.

Well, asking how unanimous consent is to be obtained in this instance is asking how to do something which the book, in my opinion, says should not be done, except, perhaps, under some extraordinary circumstances. 

Going back to your example of the adoption of convention standing rules, after the chair has stated the question on the motion to adopt the rules he could (but, in my opinion, should not) ask, "Is there any objection to considering these rules seriatim." If he does this, I think it would be incumbent upon him to offer some explanation if there is reason to believe that members may not be familiar with the procedure he is suggesting be used. If any member says, "I object", seriatim consideration cannot be used.

I did not mean to imply, in anything previously said, that I think that a motion to suspend the rules should be made in order to consider such material seriatim, but if such a motion is made, obviously it will take a unanimous vote in order to adopt it.

 

By the way, since you say that this section of the book has recently been under review by the RONR authorship team, I would like to make it clear that my concern here in this forum is to offer, to the best of my ability, an explanation, and clarification where needed, of the rules as they now exist in the current edition. It is not my intention to suggest in any way what should or should not be included in future editions, and I hope that it will never appear as if I am attempting to do so. I'm quite content in my firm belief that the authorship team is fully capable of handling the job without any help from me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Dan. In my view, part of the job is soliciting and considering suggestions from seasoned (and novice, and in-between) parliamentarians regarding what the book should say in future editions. So you can still tell us what you think should be changed, but you can't stop us from changing what you think shouldn't be. :-)

Anyway, do you have an explanation as to why the rule in the second sentence of SDC 8 exists? The book says ((p. 278, ll. 26-30) that "After all parts have been considered, the chair opens the entire document to amendment. At this time additional parts can be inserted, or parts can be struck out, or any one of them can be further amended." So, at that time, why should a division of the question not be in order as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Anyway, do you have an explanation as to why the rule in the second sentence of SDC 8 exists? The book says ((p. 278, ll. 26-30) that "After all parts have been considered, the chair opens the entire document to amendment. At this time additional parts can be inserted, or parts can be struck out, or any one of them can be further amended." So, at that time, why should a division of the question not be in order as well?

No, I don't.

As best I can determine this first appeared in the 8th edition, where it was said that, “If there has been unanimous consent to consider divisable material seriatim, it is too late to move or demand a division of the question.” In the 9th edition it was modified to say that, “If it has been decided to consider divisible material seriatim, even if the material was divisible on the demand of a single member, it is too late to move or demand a division of the question”, as it does today on page 277.

I think it may be because I don't know why the rule exists that I've been afraid to mess with it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Anyway, do you have an explanation as to why the rule in the second sentence of SDC 8 exists? The book says ((p. 278, ll. 26-30) that "After all parts have been considered, the chair opens the entire document to amendment. At this time additional parts can be inserted, or parts can be struck out, or any one of them can be further amended." So, at that time, why should a division of the question not be in order as well?

I never noticed this before, but "any one of them can be further amended" is also problematic, as it could be read to indicate that the amendments to different parts must be independent of another or, worse, that only one part may be amended and once one amendment is adopted, no other part can be amended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sean Hunt said:

I never noticed this before, but "any one of them can be further amended" is also problematic, as it could be read to indicate that the amendments to different parts must be independent of another or, worse, that only one part may be amended and once one amendment is adopted, no other part can be amended.

I don't understand what you mean when you say that "any one of them can be further amended" can be read to indicate that the amendments to different parts must be independent of another", and obviously, in this context, it makes no sense at all to read "any one of them" as meaning "only one of them", just as it would make no sense at all to take "can be further amended" as limiting amendment at this time to parts which have previously been amended.

In any event, the book has been saying this ever since 1970, and so it's too late to complain about it now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...