Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

pwilson

Members
  • Posts

    63
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

715 profile views

pwilson's Achievements

  1. My original worry concerned the few members who do not remain silent when they should and insist on the right to speak twice to every paragraph. I wondered about the proper procedure for two-thirds of the assembly to limit or end unproductive debate on an individual paragraph and move on to the next paragraph, given that Limit Debate and Previous Question can't be applied to an individual paragraph. I see now that Suspend the Rules is a straightforward solution in such circumstances.
  2. Got it. I very much appreciate your (pl.) patience and expert assistance.
  3. Thanks for the helpful insights. If I'm understanding correctly, the assembly is free to suspend the rules in order to limit, extend, or end debate on an individual paragraph being considered seriatim. But: (1) Limit or Extend Limits of Debate and Previous Question cannot be applied to an individual paragraph that is not a pending quesiton, and (2) Previous Question cannot be used to end debate on an individual paragraph without bringing anything to an immediate vote.
  4. Both replies are very helpful. Thanks! What would be wrong with moving to suspend the rules and end debate and amendment on a particular paragraph being considered? Although SDC 2 of Previous Question requires that Previous Question be applied to a motion or series of motions, rather than to an individual paragraph within a motion, that sort of rule/requirement is not among those that cannot be suspended (25:7–13).
  5. In the discussion of Consideration by Paragraph, RONR (12th ed.) 28:8 forbids the application of Previous Question and Limit or Extend Limits of Debate to individual paragraphs. Why wouldn't the principle described in 15:17 apply, namely, "that the two-thirds vote necessary for the adoption of any motion to modify the limits of debate also fulfills the requirement for suspending the rules"?
  6. Note that 28:8 also does not mention debate when it speaks of the entire document being open to amendment.
  7. Thanks for the prompt replies. My only concern is that 28:6 speaks of "debate or amendment" when dealing with individual paragraphs/sections but only of "amendment" when referring to the entire document.
  8. In describing the procedure for consideration by paragraph, RONR (12th ed.) 28:6 say, "After all parts have been considered, the chair opens the entire document to amendment." Is the entire document also open to debate at that time?
  9. The index entry for "numbers of articles, sections, or subdivisions" gives p. 277, but the issue of numbering does not appear on that page. I believe the reference should be to pp. 598-99.
  10. I'm interested in knowing whether a special meeting can approve the minutes of an earlier meeting. (I'm not asking about the approval of the minutes of the special meeting itself.) Is it permissible to include, e.g., "approval of the minutes of the regular March meeting" among the matters for which a special meeting is called?
  11. “A special meeting does not approve minutes” (RONR [11th ed.], p. 473, l. 35). Shall I interpret this statement as a blanket prohibition, or instead assume that something like the following is implied: “unless approval of minutes is among the particular matters to which the special meeting is dedicated”? I note that an executive session can be held solely for the purpose of approving the minutes of a previous executive session (p. 96, ll.14-16).
  12. I had missed these passages, which neatly settle the issue. Thanks!
  13. When a member demands division of a motion containing a series of independent resolutions on different subjects, may the member also demand that the resolutions be considered in a specific order? If a member calls “for a separate vote on Resolution No. 3” ([11th ed.], p. 275, ll. 4–5), for example, may the member also demand that Resolution No. 3 be considered and voted on before the rest of the series? Is there a default order for consideration of such divided resolutions?
  14. Thanks for the clarification and for the additional references (which aren't in the current index).
  15. The phrase “priority of business” is used, so far as I’m aware, only in the context of undebatable appeals ([11th ed.], p. 257, ll. 34–35). Does the phrase refer to the precedence of items of business (such as general and special orders for particular hours, pp. 367–71) or the precedence of motions—or both or neither?
×
×
  • Create New...