parkourninja

Suspend the rules to adopt multiple motions at once

36 posts in this topic

So, let's say you have a motion pending, an amendment to that motion pending, and an amendment to the amendment pending. Is that what you mean?

In that case, no, you cannot just take one vote, because a vote on each in succession determines what you are then voting on. What you can do is move the previous question on all pending questions. If seconded and adopted by a two thirds vote, that ends debate on all three motions, and so then you simply take the three necessary votes in order without any further debate - first on the secondary amendment, then on the primary amendment (either as it was moved, or as it was amended by the first vote), then on the main motion (either as it was moved or as it was amended by the second vote).

If that is not the kind of scenario you are talking about, then please say more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand in principle what everyone has suggested. What am I saying applies if there is an extreme time constraint and it is too long to take a vote on each subsidiary motion. This is part of a parliamentary competition where we only have 15 minutes. Simply restating each motion if 3 motions are pending (i.e. main, primary amendment, secondary amendment) takes too long and if it is parliamentary-wise acceptable to make that suspend the rules, it would be much better for our team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, so,

Q. How is this different from just moving the Previous Question on all pending questions?

Q. Why is P.Q. not sufficient?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

And, so,

Q. How is this different from just moving the Previous Question on all pending questions?

Q. Why is P.Q. not sufficient?

 

Each question must be restated which could take an extra minute to 30 seconds (which is actually significant time for us). The motions are all adopted with 1 single vote in succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quickest: "If there is no objection, we will proceed to a vote on all pending questions."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, parkourninja said:

I understand in principle what everyone has suggested. What am I saying applies if there is an extreme time constraint and it is too long to take a vote on each subsidiary motion. This is part of a parliamentary competition where we only have 15 minutes. Simply restating each motion if 3 motions are pending (i.e. main, primary amendment, secondary amendment) takes too long and if it is parliamentary-wise acceptable to make that suspend the rules, it would be much better for our team.

I still don't understand what you want to accomplish, though.  If you have a main motion, an amendment, and a secondary amendment pending, what does it mean to avoid taking a vote on each subsidiary amendment?  If we vote on all three at once, there's no way for me to express any opinion other than "the motion should be adopted, after being modified by the amendment, which in turn is modified by the secondary amendment" or "the motion should not be adopted, and also shouldn't be changed."  How would I vote if I wanted to adopt the motion as originally made?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, parkourninja said:

This is part of a parliamentary competition where we only have 15 minutes.

For a parliamentary contest where points are taken off for off-The-Book methods, don't mess with short-cuts, else the judges will deduct a point.

I know. I've been a judge. Short-cutting the plain application of the given parliamentary rule won't fly.

***

See RONR for how to adopt a motion without debate, using Suspend the Rules and Unanimous Consent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 9:34 AM, parkourninja said:

I understand in principle what everyone has suggested. What am I saying applies if there is an extreme time constraint and it is too long to take a vote on each subsidiary motion. This is part of a parliamentary competition where we only have 15 minutes. Simply restating each motion if 3 motions are pending (i.e. main, primary amendment, secondary amendment) takes too long and if it is parliamentary-wise acceptable to make that suspend the rules, it would be much better for our team.

I do not think such a suspension is in order. It appears to me to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question is immediately pending at a time. The problems which Mr. Katz illustrated show why this rule exists.

I also concur with Mr. Goldsworthy that this attempt is unwise. If this is a competition, and you are required to process a main motion, a primary amendment, and a secondary amendment, then I am certain that the judges want to see your team actually process each of those motions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I do not think such a suspension is in order. It appears to me to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question is immediately pending at a time. The problems which Mr. Katz illustrated show why this rule exists.

I also concur with Mr. Goldsworthy that this attempt is unwise. If this is a competition, and you are required to process a main motion, a primary amendment, and a secondary amendment, then I am certain that the judges want to see your team actually process each of those motions.

Oh, it's just children playing children's games. They try to be innovative. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/25/2017 at 7:12 AM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

 

See RONR for how to adopt a motion without debate, using Suspend the Rules and Unanimous Consent.

 

Could you give me a page number.

On 6/26/2017 at 10:00 AM, Josh Martin said:

I do not think such a suspension is in order. It appears to me to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question is immediately pending at a time. The problems which Mr. Katz illustrated show why this rule exists.

See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 ("Finally, if it is desired to wrap things up very quickly with a single vote, a motion may be made “to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion relating to ... be postponed indefinitely."), in that instance, it appears multiple questions are pending. The vote of the motion effectively adopts both a previous question and the motion to postpone indefinitely. Typically, one would need to adopt previous question and then postpone indefinitely as separate votes, but the suspend the rules condenses it into one vote. That instance appears to support the scenario I suggested.

 

Putting the competition advice aspect aside, I am genuinely curious about the validity of this motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 7:31 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I still don't understand what you want to accomplish, though.  If you have a main motion, an amendment, and a secondary amendment pending, what does it mean to avoid taking a vote on each subsidiary amendment?  If we vote on all three at once, there's no way for me to express any opinion other than "the motion should be adopted, after being modified by the amendment, which in turn is modified by the secondary amendment" or "the motion should not be adopted, and also shouldn't be changed."  How would I vote if I wanted to adopt the motion as originally made?

You would vote "no".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You would vote "no".

Which would have the effect, if we had somehow decided to vote on all pending motions at once, of defeating the motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parkourninja said:

Could you give me a page number.

See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 ("Finally, if it is desired to wrap things up very quickly with a single vote, a motion may be made “to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion relating to ... be postponed indefinitely."), in that instance, it appears multiple questions are pending. The vote of the motion effectively adopts both a previous question and the motion to postpone indefinitely. Typically, one would need to adopt previous question and then postpone indefinitely as separate votes, but the suspend the rules condenses it into one vote. That instance appears to support the scenario I suggested.

 

Putting the competition advice aspect aside, I am genuinely curious about the validity of this motion.

The answer to the question you asked initially is yes, it's in order. Probably a stupid waste of time, but in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

Which would have the effect, if we had somehow decided to vote on all pending motions at once, of defeating the motion.

No, it wouldn't. It would simply defeat the motion "to suspend the rules and ...".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parkourninja said:

See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 ("Finally, if it is desired to wrap things up very quickly with a single vote, a motion may be made “to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion relating to ... be postponed indefinitely."), in that instance, it appears multiple questions are pending. The vote of the motion effectively adopts both a previous question and the motion to postpone indefinitely. Typically, one would need to adopt previous question and then postpone indefinitely as separate votes, but the suspend the rules condenses it into one vote. That instance appears to support the scenario I suggested.

 

As far as I can tell, that passage envisions a main motion pending, and then moving to suspend the rules and postpone the pending motion indefinitely.  This doesn't have the illogical effects it would with Amend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

As far as I can tell, that passage envisions a main motion pending, and then moving to suspend the rules and postpone the pending motion indefinitely.  This doesn't have the illogical effects it would with Amend.  

Oh, I think it would make no difference if one or two amendments were also pending at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Oh, I think it would make no difference if one or two amendments were also pending at the time.

Well, I agree - because the action being taken is postpone indefinitely.  It doesn't really matter what motion we're killing.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, I agree - because the action being taken is postpone indefinitely.  It doesn't really matter what motion we're killing.  

The answer to the question initially asked remains "yes, it's in order." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 11:22 AM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

"All pending motions"?

How is this possible, when there is, by rule, only one main motion pending?

 

Parliamentary Law 101:

There are things called "subsidiary motions" which may be pending at the same time as a main motion is pending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Which would have the effect, if we had somehow decided to vote on all pending motions at once, of defeating the motion.

But if a majority voted No on suspending the rules, then we have not (somehow) decided to vote on (and pass) all the pending motions at once, and so everything that was pending remains pending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2017 at 2:06 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The answer to the question initially asked remains "yes, it's in order." 

So to clarify, as a general rule, it is in order to make a motion to suspend the rules which would effectively adopt several motions at once (so long as they are pertaining to the main motion at hand). And my original scenario "I move to suspend the rules and adopt all pending motions in succession with a single vote" would be 100% legal and a 2/3 vote in the affirmative for suspending the rules would therefore adopt all pending motions in succession as well.

It seems there was some dissent and confusion so I want to make sure I am understanding this properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, parkourninja said:

It seems there was some dissent and confusion so I want to make sure I am understanding this properly.

General rule:  dissent is interesting for educational value and thought process.  For the final answer, listen to Mr. Honemann.  I still don't understand his answer, but I trust it is more correct than mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, parkourninja said:

So to clarify, as a general rule, it is in order to make a motion to suspend the rules which would effectively adopt several motions at once (so long as they are pertaining to the main motion at hand). And my original scenario "I move to suspend the rules and adopt all pending motions in succession with a single vote" would be 100% legal and a 2/3 vote in the affirmative for suspending the rules would therefore adopt all pending motions in succession as well.

It seems there was some dissent and confusion so I want to make sure I am understanding this properly.

Well, I think your biggest problem is to find the proper wording for the motion you want to make. I'm not at all sure that a motion to "adopt all pending motions in succession" is the proper way to move that multiple pending motions be adopted by a single vote. Doesn't "in succession" mean one at a time?

I've said that your motion is in order because I have been told by you what you intend to accomplish, but this does not mean that I think it's perfectly phrased or a good idea to begin with. I don't think that it is either.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...