Guest D. Llama Posted March 29, 2016 at 08:32 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 at 08:32 PM An amendment is carried to a main motion . Previous question is then carried - followed by a recess. On return to order , reconsider is proposed on the motion to amend- carried earlier on . Is the motion to reconsider in order given that previous question was carried ? Where is this specifically dealt with in RONR . Thank-you . D. Llama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted March 29, 2016 at 08:53 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 at 08:53 PM See "Effect on subsequent motions generally" in RONR 11th ed., pp. 206-207. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted March 29, 2016 at 09:38 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 at 09:38 PM I believe this would be a situation where the motion to reconsider can be made, but it cannot be taken up at that time. Since the motion to be reconsidered is the subsidiary motion to amend, this motion (to amend) would not be in order when a motion for the previous question is pending. This is covered on pp. 315-332, the section on the motion to reconsider. Given that there will be a decision on the main motion before the motion to reconsider can be taken up, I think the motion to reconsider will have to be recast to include the main motion as well as the amendment (p, 327, l. 31 - p. 328, l.12). This could be done as soon as the result of the vote on the main motion is announced. Of course, unless this is in a committee meeting, the person making the motion to reconsider must have voted on the prevailing side on the amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2016 at 10:07 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 at 10:07 PM Thank-you Mr. Huynh -Do you agree with Mr. Lages . Thank-you Mr. Lages . You refer to "recast" - is that a permitted approach to this ? I clearly see the reference to pages 315-332 RONR - are you able to pin this down to a line ,or a few lines- as to the specific place(s) that allow for an authoritative, and focused in RONR, - response . Much Obliged D. Llama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 29, 2016 at 10:28 PM Report Share Posted March 29, 2016 at 10:28 PM Mr. Lages : One further observation - previous question in this situation - is/was not "pending " - it was voted on and carried ,after the amendment, was carried . thank-you D.Llama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted March 30, 2016 at 02:16 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 02:16 AM See "Reconsideration of a vote taken under the previous question" on p. 206. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 30, 2016 at 03:02 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 03:02 AM 6 hours ago, Guest D. Llama said: An amendment is carried to a main motion . Previous question is then carried - followed by a recess. On return to order , reconsider is proposed on the motion to amend- carried earlier on . Is the motion to reconsider in order given that previous question was carried ? Where is this specifically dealt with in RONR . Thank-you . D. Llama 4 hours ago, Guest said: One further observation - previous question in this situation - is/was not "pending " - it was voted on and carried ,after the amendment, was carried . thank-you D.Llama And then a recess was taken before the main motion was voted on, correct? In that case, a motion to reconsider the amendment is in order, but it is not debatable. See page 320, lines 17-30: "When the motion proposed to be reconsidered is not debatable—either because of its nature or because it is subject to an unexhausted order for the Previous Question (16)—the motion to Reconsider is undebatable. Similarly, if the Previous Question is in effect on a pending question or series of questions, and if a motion which is proposed to be reconsidered adheres to these pending question(s) in such a way that the reconsideration must be taken up before the Previous Question is exhausted, both the motion to Reconsider and the motion to be reconsidered are undebatable—even if the latter motion was open to debate as its earlier consideration and the Previous Question was ordered later." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Llama Posted March 30, 2016 at 04:28 AM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 04:28 AM Greetings Mr. Gerber : Yes a successful motion to recess followed the motion carried on the previous question . And much obliged -this seems to pin this down vey nicely. Thank-you . D.Llama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 30, 2016 at 03:03 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 03:03 PM As I understand it, the series of events is as follows: 1. A main motion is introduced. 2. A motion to amend the main motion is adopted. 3. The previous question is ordered on the main motion. 4. A recess is taken. 5. A motion is made to reconsider the vote on the amendment which was adopted. The first question asked is whether or not the motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to amend is in order given that the previous question has subsequently been ordered on the main motion, which means that a motion to amend the main motion would not be in order. I agree that the answer to this question is "yes, it is." The second question asked is where is this specifically dealt with in RONR, and as best I can determine the answer to this question is "nowhere" (although the passages cited in the preceding responses clearly imply that the motion to reconsider would be in order). Maybe I'm missing something. It’s interesting to note that in PL, on page 73, General Robert makes it very plain that it is in order to reconsider votes on amendments and other motions subsidiary to the main motion that were voted on before the previous question was ordered. By the way, I think the fact that a recess intervened between ordering the previous question and the making of the motion to reconsider is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Llama Posted March 30, 2016 at 04:01 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 04:01 PM Thank-you Mr Honemann: An even more exact response - much appreciated . Your response is that - there is no specific answer in RONR for this inquiry -save by implication only. If you are "missing something" in this connection- perhaps Mr. Gerber can point out what that would be . Obliged . D.Llama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 30, 2016 at 04:18 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 04:18 PM 1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: The second question asked is where is this specifically dealt with in RONR, and as best I can determine the answer to this question is "nowhere" (although the passages cited in the preceding responses clearly imply that the motion to reconsider would be in order). Maybe I'm missing something. The next edition of RONR will most likely address this more specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Llama Posted March 30, 2016 at 06:21 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 06:21 PM The benefits of this worthy Forum continues - apace ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted March 30, 2016 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 08:48 PM 17 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said: even if the latter motion was open to debate as its earlier consideration And perhaps correct the misspelled word "as" which the gentleman picked up via the copy-and-paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 30, 2016 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted March 30, 2016 at 09:31 PM 42 minutes ago, Guest Zev said: 18 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said: even if the latter motion was open to debate as its earlier consideration And perhaps correct the misspelled word "as" which the gentleman picked up via the copy-and-paste. Oops! Thanks for pointing that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted March 31, 2016 at 04:12 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 04:12 PM Earlier in this thread I stated that I thought this was a case where the motion to reconsider could be made but not considered at the time it was made. I based this on the following statements: "With respect to its consideration, has only the the same rank as that of the motion to be reconsidered..." (p.318, l.4-5), and "If a motion to reconsider is made at a time when it can be taken up - that is, when the motion proposed to be reconsidered would be in order initially" (my emphasis)-... (p.322, l.15-18). In both of these cases, I assumed that, because an order for the previous question on the main motion was in effect, that a motion to amend would not be in order. Now, however, I'm wondering if that is correct, based on the following statement: "In the case of subsidiary or incidental motions that adhere to a main motion, however, Reconsider can be applied only in such a way that the reconsideration takes place while the main motion to which they adhered is pending - either before the main motion is voted on or when it is being reconsidered at the same time." (p. 319, l.9-14). Does this statement imply that, in the situation described here, the motion to reconsider the amendment can not only be made, but also taken up immediately, despite the order for the previous question being in effect? Or, is this a situation as described on p. 327, l.31- p. 328, l.8 - where the order for the previous question requires an immediate vote on the main motion, after which the reconsideration can be brought up, but will now include the main motion as well as the amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:07 PM In the factual situation described, the motion to reconsider the amendment is in order and should be taken up immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted April 4, 2016 at 01:32 PM Report Share Posted April 4, 2016 at 01:32 PM On 3/31/2016 at 0:12 PM, Bruce Lages said: Or, is this a situation as described on p. 327, l.31- p. 328, l.8 - where the order for the previous question requires an immediate vote on the main motion, after which the reconsideration can be brought up, but will now include the main motion as well as the amendment? On 3/31/2016 at 2:07 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said: In the factual situation described, the motion to reconsider the amendment is in order and should be taken up immediately. Would you (or SG or anyone else who can) be kind enough to provide a factual situation where the passage Mr. Lages cites must be the prevailing rule to be followed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 4, 2016 at 02:46 PM Report Share Posted April 4, 2016 at 02:46 PM On 3/31/2016 at 0:12 PM, Bruce Lages said: Or, is this a situation as described on p. 327, l.31- p. 328, l.8 - where the order for the previous question requires an immediate vote on the main motion, after which the reconsideration can be brought up, but will now include the main motion as well as the amendment? 1 hour ago, George Mervosh said: Would you (or SG or anyone else who can) be kind enough to provide a factual situation where the passage Mr. Lages cites must be the prevailing rule to be followed? How about example c) on page 330. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted April 4, 2016 at 09:03 PM Report Share Posted April 4, 2016 at 09:03 PM If I could raise a variation on Mr. Mervosh's question: Under what conditions, if any, would an active order for the previous question on a main motion take precedence over bringing up the reconsideration of a subsidiary or incidental motion that was adhering to the main motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 4, 2016 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted April 4, 2016 at 09:33 PM 34 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said: If I could raise a variation on Mr. Mervosh's question: Under what conditions, if any, would an active order for the previous question on a main motion take precedence over bringing up the reconsideration of a subsidiary or incidental motion that was adhering to the main motion? I'm afraid I can't cope with this because I'm not sure what is meant by an "active order for the previous question", or if by "bringing up" you mean "making" or "calling up" (or something else), but putting all that aside, I'll bet the answer to your question is "there aren't any." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted April 4, 2016 at 11:34 PM Report Share Posted April 4, 2016 at 11:34 PM By 'active order for the previous question', I meant the motion for the previous question has been adopted but the vote on the main motion has not yet begun, and by 'bringing up' I did indeed mean calling up ('consideration of the motion to reconsider' just sounds really awkward). I suspected that was the answer - thanks for the confirmation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted April 5, 2016 at 03:07 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 at 03:07 PM The situation I was asking about was where the previous question has been ordered on the main motion, but the vote on the main motion has not yet begun. So the main motion has not been adopted (or rejected) at this point. I understand (I think) that a motion to reconsider the amendment could certainly be made at this time, but the question is can reconsider also be brought up at this time, i.e., before the main motion is voted on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 5, 2016 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted April 5, 2016 at 04:05 PM 51 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said: The situation I was asking about was where the previous question has been ordered on the main motion, but the vote on the main motion has not yet begun. So the main motion has not been adopted (or rejected) at this point. I understand (I think) that a motion to reconsider the amendment could certainly be made at this time, but the question is can reconsider also be brought up at this time, i.e., before the main motion is voted on? I think the motion to reconsider will become the immediately pending question because, at the time when it is being made, no other motion that would take precedence over it is pending (RONR, 11th ed., p. 325, l. 33 to p. 326, l. 9). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM Report Share Posted April 6, 2016 at 10:41 AM Some of you may have noticed that my post which immediately preceded the one above has been deleted. My thanks to Mr. Gerber for having done so. I seem to have gotten it all mixed up somehow - apparently out of sheer carelessness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.