Incidental motions - "decided immediately" (?)

[Guest D.Llama]

RONR  provides that incidental motions must be "decided immediately" ( p. 69,  Ln 24 ) but what does this mean exactly ? If the incidental motion is in order it must yield to a privileged motion, no different than say a motion to commit yields to a privileged motion . Is it not also the case then  that a motion to commit ,that is in order ,must likewise be  "decided immediately". What is it in the context of the incidental motions that calls for this reference  to " decided immediately',  over any other say- subsidiary motion that is in order ? Any help on  this would be much  appreciated .    

 

 

[jstackpo]

The descriptions of the incidental motions (and all the others, too) in the book (RONR) contain the answers to your questions.

[Bruce Lages]

Note that the p. 69 reference also indicates that there are a few exceptions to the requirement that incidental motions be decided immediately. One such exception that comes to mind is the motion request to be excused from a duty, which is commonly used to tender a resignation. A vote to accept a resignation is frequently delayed for a time after the resignation is tendered.

[Guest Gary c Tesser]

16 hours ago, jstackpo said:

The descriptions of the incidental motions (and all the others, too) in the book (RONR) contain the answers to your questions.

John, I really don't think they do -- do you really? Clearly, OP Guest D.Llama has read the material (viz., he / she gives citations), and is still somewhat at a loss.  I can sympathize, since there are boatloads (I used to say "shiploads," since they are bigger than boatloads, but people mis-heard and though I was cussing) of allowable interferences which will preclude immediacy.

If you disagree, kindly remember my post-office box number.  And phone me because I don't even remember having one.

[Joshua Katz]

I took the immediacy reference as meaning that we can't return to "business as usual" until they are resolved, i.e. we can't postpone the question of how to vote on something and then return to the something, not that nothing can interrupt their consideration.  However, that doesn't make a ton of sense, because it seems to be more often true for subsidiary motions.  

[D.Llama]

I am obliged to  Mr Tesser  and Godlefan  for the above  replies  . This usage in RONR ( "decided immediately" )  seems erroneous and confusing  ( as used, p.69,Ln 24 )  in that it seemingly has   no application for incidental motions,  any more so than it would have  for  most subsidiary motions. And if it  has the effect of sewing confusion perhaps it would best be  deleted from RONR -  next edition . But if there is any other on this forum that has a more informed perspective -that  contribution would be most welcome . And of course it is always beneficial to hear from other illuminati, the like of  Honemann, Gerber ,and so on- should this be worthy to attract such informed  address. Obliged to any and all in advance . 

D.Llama

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/3/2016 at 3:41 PM, Guest D.Llama said:

RONR  provides that incidental motions must be "decided immediately" ( p. 69,  Ln 24 ) but what does this mean exactly ? If the incidental motion is in order it must yield to a privileged motion, no different than say a motion to commit yields to a privileged motion . Is it not also the case then  that a motion to commit ,that is in order ,must likewise be  "decided immediately". What is it in the context of the incidental motions that calls for this reference  to " decided immediately',  over any other say- subsidiary motion that is in order ? Any help on  this would be much  appreciated .

No, RONR does not "provide" that "incidental motions must be 'decided immediately.'" You are quoting two words entirely out of context. Here is the passage you are referring to (p. 69, ll. 7-25):

"Incidental motions relate, in different ways, to the pending business or to business otherwise at hand—some of them with varying degrees of resemblance to subsidiary motions, but none of them possessing all five of the characteristics listed on pages 64–65. . . . An incidental motion is said to be incidental to the other motion or matter out of which it arises. With but few exceptions, incidental motions are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed."

I think it's rather clear that "decided immediately" means, in this context, "decided before business can proceed." And it's not simply that one of these incidental motions must be decided before business can proceed because it is the immediately pending question (which would be circular reasoning of the highest order), but rather that they "are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed."

So yes, an incidental motion will itself yield to a privileged motion (if the latter is higher in the order of precedence than the pending question to which the incidental motion is incidental), but that is not because the privileged motion has any special relation to the incidental motion or to the pending question. Privileged motions "do not relate to the pending business, but have to do with special matters of immediate and overriding importance which, without debate, should be allowed to interrupt the consideration of anything else." (p. 66, ll. 30-33)

As noted in the quoted passage, incidental motions and subsidiary motions share certain resemblances; and since subsidiary motions "aid in treating or disposing of" the motions to which they are applied (p. 64, ll. 29-30), they must also be decided before the main question can be decided. Subsidiary motions generally don't have the same sense of immediacy as incidental motions, though, because each applicable incidental motion is decided when it is brought up, without any debate (usually) and without an order of precedence in relation to other incidental motions that might be applied to the same question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 9/4/2016 at 2:22 PM, D.Llama said:

... if it  has the effect of sewing confusion ...

Nah, we don't sew confusion -- we tear it apart.

[D.Llama]

Truly  I am much obliged for this reply  Mr Gerber - and I find  the  explanation interesting  .  I would be obliged  to hear if others ,so  informed as yourself, agree or  question this  analysis as it does not persuade  this writer on initial reflection .I  certainly do wonder what Mr. Godelfan and Tesser ( highly informed experts and regular  contributors to this forum ) might offer .   

But if this explanation  is indeed  concluded ( by a consensus of the illuminati ) to be sound and accurate does it not also suggest that many readers will continue to find this ( "decided immediately" )  interpretation, far too nuanced  to grasp and therefore  unavailable .  That  remaining - until better clarity is provided in some fashion  within RONR . Tearing apart confusion  may on occasion require supplement for those of us too slow to grasp  the layers of meaning- that often  present  . 

 As noted -your attention and time spent to address this -  much appreciated ,Mr G.

D.Llama

[Shmuel Gerber]

8 hours ago, D.Llama said:

I would be obliged  to hear if others ,so  informed as yourself, agree or  question this  analysis as it does not persuade  this writer on initial reflection .

So it seems you are convinced that the words "before business can proceed" mean nothing, and so the passage "immediately, before business can proceed" means the same thing as "immediately"; and the words "are related to the main question in such a way that" mean nothing, and so the passage "incidental motions are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed" means the same thing as "incidental motions must be decided immediately."

Well, OK, you're a tough fellow to persuade.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, I'm not a highly informed expert, but I might offer that I find Mr. Gerber's answer entirely reasonable, and that it clears up my confusion about subsidiary motions. 

[D.Llama]

I too often find much in the analysis and responses from Mr G .  But here the  interpretation  provided above seems  ( thin ) and to rely on the circumstance  that since the privileged motions "do not relate to the pending business" , therefore  the usage of " decided  immediately"  is  sound  as presented in RONR . But what of the motion to Lay on the Table -  that motion as well ( P. 73 LN  5-8) , has currency in this connection -but does it not relate to the pending business ?

But I surrender to the wisdom of (somewhat informed expert ) Mr.  Goldefan,  and Mr G. ( clearly an illuminati - as  on the cover of RONR  ) who apparently now reside in the same tent . Much obliged . 

D.Llama 

[George Mervosh]

4 hours ago, D.Llama said:

I too often find much in the analysis and responses from Mr G .  But here the  interpretation  provided above seems  ( thin ) and to rely on the circumstance  that since the privileged motions "do not relate to the pending business" , therefore  the usage of " decided  immediately"  is  sound  as presented in RONR . But what of the motion to Lay on the Table -  that motion as well ( P. 73 LN  5-8) , has currency in this connection -but does it not relate to the pending business ?

But I surrender to the wisdom of (somewhat informed expert ) Mr.  Goldefan,  and Mr G. ( clearly an illuminati - as  on the cover of RONR  ) who apparently now reside in the same tent . Much obliged . 

D.Llama 

Just my own observaton on part of your post until Mr. Gerber drops by again - The motion to Lay on the Table is not a privileged motion, and if, while an incidental motion is pending and no privileged motions are pending, the main motion is laid on the table, the incidental motion goes with it and when the main  motion is taken from the table, the incidental motion will need to be decided before business can proceed, assuming no privileged motions are made and become pending before the incidental motion is decided.

If I missed your point I'm sorry and if I have that wrong Mr. Gerber will tidy up for me.

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

George,

I think D. Llama is bothered by the fact that RONR uses the words "decided immediately" with respect to incidental motions on page 69, but not with respect to subsidiary motions on pages 64-65. Again, I think the description must be read in context. The previous sentence says "An incidental motion is said to be incidental to the other motion or matter out of which it arises," so to me it seems quite logical to elaborate by then (immediately) stating, "With but few exceptions, incidental motions are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed."

I don't think there are any great secrets of parliamentary wizardry embedded in these particular words, but it does seem to me that many of the incidental motions do in fact need to be considered in a more immediate fashion than many of the subsidiary motions -- while others, admittedly, very closely resemble subsidiary motions in character (and vice-versa).

[Guest D Llama]

Amen to this regadless of the circumstsnce that the  subsidiary motion to lay on the table is apparently a motion that does relate to the pending business and cannot be factored in here by Mr G. - as do the privleged motions .At  the least  I continue to maintain that the wording  around this topic is confusing  in RONR and might be improved on . Obliged to all responders and good health all around !. 

D. Llama

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/5/2016 at 11:35 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Nah, we don't sew confusion -- we tear it apart.

As ye sew, so shall ye rip.

[Gary c Tesser]

OK, I'm wondering now.... in "With but few exceptions, incidental motions are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed," what meaning would be lost, or changed, if "immediately" (with or without the comma) were not there?  How about if "immediately" were struck out, and "right away" inserted in its place?

(Maybe more later.)