Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Suspending the Rules and Killing a Motion Laid on the Table


parkourninja

Recommended Posts

If a motion was laid on the table and a member wanted to get ride of the motion without bring it back. Could they move to "suspend the rules and postpone the motion laid on the table to... indefinitely" (or some other wording)? Could this be done after a member moved to take a motion from the table such as in the following scenario?:

Member 1 (after recognition): I move to take from the table the motion to...

Member 2: Mr. President

President: For what purpose does the member rise?

Member 2: To suspend the rules in conjunction with the matter at hand.

President: The chair recognizes Member 2.

Member 2: I move to suspend the rules and postpone the motion currently on the table to... indefinitely.

Is there another motion that would better achieve this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

How about voting against a motion to kill it?

I don't understand the question. If the objective is to kill a motion that is currently on the table without taking the motion from the table, what is the best way to do this. I gave a sample scenario that I think would be the best way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, parkourninja said:

If a motion was laid on the table and a member wanted to get ride of the motion without bring it back. Could they move to "suspend the rules and postpone the motion laid on the table to... indefinitely" (or some other wording)? Could this be done after a member moved to take a motion from the table such as in the following scenario?:

Member 1 (after recognition): I move to take from the table the motion to...

Member 2: Mr. President

President: For what purpose does the member rise?

Member 2: To suspend the rules in conjunction with the matter at hand.

President: The chair recognizes Member 2.

Member 2: I move to suspend the rules and postpone the motion currently on the table to... indefinitely.

Is there another motion that would better achieve this?

A motion to Suspend the Rules is out of order when another has the floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, parkourninja said:

I should have phrased the scenario better. The member moves to take from the table ..., finishes motion and it is seconded. Then Member 2 interjects.

The motion to Suspend the Rules would still not be in order at that point, as the chair first has to state the question on the motion to Take from the Table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The motion to Suspend the Rules would still not be in order at that point, as the chair first has to state the question on the motion to Take from the Table.

After the motion is stated by the chair but before a vote is taken, would it then be valid and the best motion to achieve the desired effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, parkourninja said:

After the motion is stated by the chair but before a vote is taken, would it then be valid and the best motion to achieve the desired effect?

At that point, the motion to Suspend the Rules could validly be adopted. I can't say it would be "the best" motion, but see http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 for a somewhat similar scenario and possible wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Why not just vote against taking it up?  If it remains on the table for the meeting where it was laid there, and the next, it dies.  

Or, and I know this is a bit extreme, but we could debate motions and vote on them instead of trying to kill them without debate.

If the assembly members have voted to lay the motion on the table, it's not much of a stretch to suppose they might want it dead. And who said there was no debate on it already?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the assembly members have voted to lay the motion on the table, I presume that at the time, there was either an urgent matter to attend to, or a desire to deal first with a motion that would arise later, not that they want it dead.  If they wanted it dead, I presume they would have moved to postpone it indefinitely at that time. If they want it dead now, they can vote it down - it seems to me that the reason to want it dead before it comes off the table is to prevent debate on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If the assembly members have voted to lay the motion on the table, I presume that at the time, there was either an urgent matter to attend to, or a desire to deal first with a motion that would arise later, not that they want it dead.  If they wanted it dead, I presume they would have moved to postpone it indefinitely at that time. If they want it dead now, they can vote it down - it seems to me that the reason to want it dead before it comes off the table is to prevent debate on the matter.

The reason to want it dead before it comes off the table is to prevent *further* debate on the matter. That's not necessarily the same thing as killing the motion without debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/3/2017 at 11:31 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

At that point, the motion to Suspend the Rules could validly be adopted. I can't say it would be "the best" motion, but see http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 for a somewhat similar scenario and possible wording.

I checked that scenario but I don't see what would be a better motion. In that case, the motion would need to be taken from the table before postponing indefinitely which would be an extra motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll chime in. It looks like a single person wants to kill - with as little additional debate as possible - a motion that was once under consideration, but is currently on the table.

First, the attempt to do this would be out of order if it were being done merely to get another "shot" at killing the motion after previous attempts to Postpone Indefinitely or Object to Consideration of the Question were unsuccessful. Presumably, the motion was laid on the table for some legitimate reason unrelated to the merits of the question, and now some new information has turned up that makes it advisable to consider killing the motion with minimal additional debate.

If that’s the situation, the following scenario gets it done efficiently and without violating anyone’s rights:

1.   Consider doing nothing. If no one else wants to bring the motion back, it dies a natural death at the end of the session.

2.   If someone moves to Take (the motion) From the Table, you could rise quickly before such is stated by the chair, and say, “Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if the member would be willing to withdraw his motion in light of new information that might better warrant a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.”

3.   If the member declines, which is his right, vote no. The motion to Take From the Table is undebatable, that is, you don’t get to argue your reasons yet for wanting the tabled motion killed. If your side prevails, of course, the motion stays on the table.

4.   If the motion is brought back from the table anyway, obtain the floor and move “To Suspend the Rules and Postpone Indefinitely the motion under consideration” That motion is debatable. You get to speak first, but you don’t get to prevent people from articulating their reasons for not wanting the motion killed. If your side prevails in a 2/3 vote, mission accomplished!

The problem with the original scenario is that, when desiring to Suspend the Rules for some purpose, one doesn't get to interrupt a member who has the floor. Nor can one move to Suspend the Rules to accomplish something unrelated to business that is currently under consideration. The chair would probably rule such actions out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silvertomster said:

 

4.   If the motion is brought back from the table anyway, obtain the floor and move “To Suspend the Rules and Postpone Indefinitely the motion under consideration” That motion is debatable. You get to speak first, but you don’t get to prevent people from articulating their reasons for not wanting the motion killed. If your side prevails in a 2/3 vote, mission accomplished!

 

If the main motion is no longer on the table, and there was no previous motion to postpone indefinitely, why is it necessary to "suspend the rules and postpone indefinitely" rather than just moving to postpone indefinitely directly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Silvertomster said:

 

4.   If the motion is brought back from the table anyway, obtain the floor and move “To Suspend the Rules and Postpone Indefinitely the motion under consideration” That motion is debatable. You get to speak first, but you don’t get to prevent people from articulating their reasons for not wanting the motion killed. If your side prevails in a 2/3 vote, mission accomplished!

 

Such a motion is undebatable, but I'm also puzzled as to why it is necessary to suspend the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Such a motion is undebatable, but I'm also puzzled as to why it is necessary to suspend the rules.

Agreed. If the motion is again before the assembly (having been taken from the table) I see no reason to suspend the rules, unless perhaps the motion to Postpone Indefinitely had been defeated earlier in the session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...