Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Consideration as a whole


Guest Sharon W

Recommended Posts

Even in that case, the nominations for each office are taken up one at a time. Nominations are not opened simultaneously for multiple, different offices.

Yes, but after nominations have been opened and considered for each office in turn, and only one nomination has come forward for each office, why should the presiding officer not ask for unanimous consent to suspend a requirement for a (non-ballot) vote and simply elect the officers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

What about p. 439 ll. 12-14? This seems to indicate very clearly that performing an election to multiple offices simultaneously is not a violation of a FFPL.

Even in that case, the nominations for each office are taken up one at a time. Nominations are not opened simultaneously for multiple, different offices.

I agree. However, the premise of this question was that there is but one candidate for each office, so I have been presuming that nominations have already been taken and were properly closed for all offices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but after nominations have been opened and considered for each office in turn, and only one nomination has come forward for each office, why should the presiding officer not ask for unanimous consent to suspend a requirement for a (non-ballot) vote and simply elect the officers?

It is improper to take up multiple questions at the same time and dispose of them all by one parliamentary action. Each one has to be taken up and disposed of individually. Since there is no legitimate reason to do this, one is led to believe that the presiding officer is acting in a purely partisan manner to get his choices elected in one improper step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Elsman, in a situation where it is proper for the chair to announce a series of elections by acclamation (let's say there are 15 board positions, with one nominee for each, and no contested positions), are you saying that the chair must announce the outcome for each position individually (i.e. 15 distinct announcements of election outcome)? That there is no correct way for the chair to more quickly summarize and announce the results to the assembly? I'm not trying to be argumentative -- just trying to clarify this in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Elsman, in a situation where it is proper for the chair to announce a series of elections by acclamation (let's say there are 15 board positions, with one nominee for each, and no contested positions), are you saying that the chair must announce the outcome for each position individually (i.e. 15 distinct announcements of election outcome)? That there is no correct way for the chair to more quickly summarize and announce the results to the assembly? I'm not trying to be argumentative -- just trying to clarify this in my mind.

I think we are talking more about the elections for different offices: president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, etc. The election of board members may be handled as one or multiple elections, depending on whether the seats are, or are not, exactly alike in every respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are talking more about the elections for different offices: president, vice president, secretary, treasurer, etc. The election of board members may be handled as one or multiple elections, depending on whether the seats are, or are not, exactly alike in every respect.

I see I was not clear. In a case where there are elections for many distinct named offices, does the chair need to announce the outcome for each office individually (same situation as my previous post -- exactly one nominee per office, no contested elections)?

(The lack of clarity in my question comes from the fact that the boards I have participated in happen to be composed of members who all have distinct titles and roles within the organization -- not elected as generic board members)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Elsman, in a situation where it is proper for the chair to announce a series of elections by acclamation (let's say there are 15 board positions, with one nominee for each, and no contested positions), are you saying that the chair must announce the outcome for each position individually (i.e. 15 distinct announcements of election outcome)? That there is no correct way for the chair to more quickly summarize and announce the results to the assembly? I'm not trying to be argumentative -- just trying to clarify this in my mind.

Under what conditions would there be 15 distinct board positions with one nominee for each? I would presume rather that there were 15 identical board positions with 15 nominees. In that case, if there were no additional nominations from the floor, the chair would announce all 15 elected.

But for individual officers, suppose there was only one nominee for the presidency, the chair would normally announce the lone candidate elected by acclamation before moving on to vice president. What would cause him to go down the list and get nominations for every office, and then make a mass announcement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see I was not clear. In a case where there are elections for many distinct named offices, does the chair need to announce the outcome for each office individually (same situation as my previous post -- exactly one nominee per office, no contested elections)?

(The lack of clarity in my question comes from the fact that the boards I have participated in happen to be composed of members who all have distinct titles and roles within the organization -- not elected as generic board members)

Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

But for individual officers, suppose there was only one nominee for the presidency, the chair would normally announce the lone candidate elected by acclamation before moving on to vice president. What would cause him to go down the list and get nominations for every office, and then make a mass announcement?

The process I have seen repeatedly (in several small organizations) is that the nominating committee works ahead of time to find nominees, and that the committee's list of suggested nominees is provided to the membership prior to the election meeting (as required in the bylaws). At the meeting the list is reviewed (i.e. the choices of the nominating committee are nominated), and then the floor is opened to nominations for any/all of the positions. Usually no one else is nominated from the floor. At this point, the rest of the election is usually very quick (with unfortunate variations, such as the chair asking the secretary to cast a single ballot for the 'slate', or the membership chorusing 'aye' to indicate approval of the whole bunch of nominees for their assorted positions).

I've long realized that this would be more appropriately handled by the chair announcing the nominees elected by acclamation. According to Mr. Elsman, there is the additional wrinkle that the chair should announce each nominee elected to his/her position in turn, and that there is no proper shortcut for the chair to use in making the announcements.

Apologies to Sharon W -- I did not mean to hijack your thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The process I have seen repeatedly (in several small organizations) is that the nominating committee works ahead of time to find nominees, and that the committee's list of suggested nominees is provided to the membership prior to the election meeting (as required in the bylaws). At the meeting the list is reviewed (i.e. the choices of the nominating committee are nominated), and then the floor is opened to nominations for any/all of the positions. Usually no one else is nominated from the floor. At this point, the rest of the election is usually very quick (with unfortunate variations, such as the chair asking the secretary to cast a single ballot for the 'slate', or the membership chorusing 'aye' to indicate approval of the whole bunch of nominees for their assorted positions).

I've long realized that this would be more appropriately handled by the chair announcing the nominees elected by acclamation. According to Mr. Elsman, there is the additional wrinkle that the chair should announce each nominee elected to his/her position in turn, and that there is no proper shortcut for the chair to use in making the announcements.

Apologies to Sharon W -- I did not mean to hijack your thread.

The election for each office is a separate main motion "that _____ be elected to the office of [title]." Therefore, there is a separate announcement of the result of each by the chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a general response, not concerned with the details of this thread, multiple main motions can be introduced and considered at the same time. See RONR (11th ed), p. 274, ll. 32-34.

The FPPL that only one question can be considered at a time is primarily concerned with preventing the introduction of a new subject before the pending matter is disposed of. See RONR (11th ed.), bottom of p. xxxiii.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The election for each office is a separate main motion "that _____ be elected to the office of [title]." Therefore, there is a separate announcement of the result of each by the chair.

This makes sense, of course.

However, if a member calls out, "I move that we elect all of the candidates proposed by the nominating committee, to the offices for which they were nominated!" then what? Leaving aside the usual problem with this phrasing when applied to an election (the suggestion that a 'no' vote is appropriate in an election), it certainly sounds like one motion, and it would be a motion whose meaning is clear to the assembly. The motion is obviously subject to division, but so are a lot of other motions which may come before the assembly. The principle of not considering several main motions at the same time doesn't seem adequate to preclude the combination, since assemblies routinely consider several (potential) main motions together -- this happens whenever an assembly chooses not to divide a divisible question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes sense, of course.

However, if a member calls out, "I move that we elect all of the candidates proposed by the nominating committee, to the offices for which they were nominated!" then what? Leaving aside the usual problem with this phrasing when applied to an election (the suggestion that a 'no' vote is appropriate in an election), it certainly sounds like one motion, and it would be a motion whose meaning is clear to the assembly. The motion is obviously subject to division, but so are a lot of other motions which may come before the assembly. The principle of not considering several main motions at the same time doesn't seem adequate to preclude the combination, since assemblies routinely consider several (potential) main motions together -- this happens whenever an assembly chooses not to divide a divisible question...

A motion like this is superfluous, since this is what will happen, anyway, when the vote is taken by voice vote and there is only one candidate for each office. Nevertheless, the procedure will be exactly the same as if such a motion had not been made. The presiding officer will still make a separate announcement for each main motion, one at a time, until all the elections have been gone through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion. In such a case, one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member, and the motion for Division of a Question is not used.
RONR (11th ed.), p. 274, l. 32 to p. 275, l. 1.

That certainly seems to me to recognize the validity of one motion incorporating "a series of independent . . . main motions dealing with different subjects," so long as no member demands separate consideration. If the motion described by Trina were to be made, then any member could demand a separate vote on any particular office (or offices). If no member did so, however, it would appear that the chair could properly put the motion to a vote.

Is this inconsistent with the following "fundamental principle of parliamentary law"?

Only one question can be considered at a time; once a motion is before the assembly,it must be adopted or rejected by a vote, or the assembly must take action disposing of the question in some other way, before any other business (except certain matters called "privileged questions") can be introduced.
RONR (11th ed.), p. 59, ll. 18-23.

It is inconsistent only if one insists on regarding election of each of the officers as a separate question. Certainly it can be made so, upon the demand of a single member. But the "fundamental principle" itself equates "question" with "a motion." The proposal to "elect all of the candidates . . ." is stated as one motion.

If further evidence is needed, consider other places in RONR where it is recognized that multiple motions can be combined into one. "[A] series of amendments to a main motion (or conceivably to a primary amendment such as a substitute) may be offered in one motion." RONR (11th ed.), p. 275, ll. 7-9. "When a committee reports back a resolution . . . with amendments that it proposes . . . [a]lternatively, the chair puts a single question on all of the committee's amendments together, except those for which a member asks for a separate vote . . . . This is called putting the question on the amendments in gross." RONR (11th ed.), p. 520, ll. 29-31; p. 523, ll. 3-5, 9-10. Finally: "By unanimous consent . . . the assembly can allow the introduction of a motion to adopt all recommendations in the report, without considering the amendments separately." RONR (11th ed.), p. 523, ll. 19-22.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burke, I stand behind my previous post in this thread, which claims this particular FPPL is not actually concerned with "considering" more than one question at a time; it is, in fact, a prohibition against introducing a new matter before disposing of the pending question (except by the mechanism to Raise a Question of Privelege).

This is evidenced by the fact that the motion "to suspend the rules and adopt all the general orders" is in order if made when no question is pending, but is not in order when any question is pending. The point being that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law cannot be suspended, so it is clear what the FPPL actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you arguing that the motion described by Trina would be out of order because, in your view, it "introduces a new matter" -- the motion to elect all the officers at once -- before disposing of the pending question -- the election of one particular officer? The fact that nominations for multiple offices can be made before any one is voted on (p. 435, ll. 27-29), and indeed the nominating committee report is given in that fashion (p. 434, ll. 30-34), along with the common practice of voting for all the officers on one ballot (pp. 439-40), suggests that the pending question legitimately can be characterized as the "election of officers." It therefore seems to me that the motion to elect all the officers at once does not introduce a new matter, but rather provides a method of disposing of the pending question.

By the bye, consideration of a main motion may be interrupted not just by Raise a Question of Privilege, but by any privileged motion -- i.e., Call for the Orders of the Day, Recess, Adjourn, and Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you arguing that the motion described by Trina would be out of order because, in your view, it "introduces a new matter" -- the motion to elect all the officers at once -- before disposing of the pending question -- the election of one particular officer? The fact that nominations for multiple offices can be made before any one is voted on (p. 435, ll. 27-29), and indeed the nominating committee report is given in that fashion (p. 434, ll. 30-34), along with the common practice of voting for all the officers on one ballot (pp. 439-40), suggests that the pending question legitimately can be characterized as the "election of officers." It therefore seems to me that the motion to elect all the officers at once does not introduce a new matter, but rather provides a method of disposing of the pending question.

By the bye, consideration of a main motion may be interrupted not just by Raise a Question of Privilege, but by any privileged motion -- i.e., Call for the Orders of the Day, Recess, Adjourn, and Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn.

No, I have nothing against Trina's motion. My comments are concerned with the nature of the FPPL, as stated on the bottom of p. xxxiii and elsewhere.

As for the interruption of a pending question by another, it seems clear that the rule is referring to main motions, not privileged motions, as you mentioned, or any other secondary motion. It is interesting to note, though, that the consideration of a main motion can be properly interrupted by another in connection with a special order set for a certain time, when that time arrives. However, since the assembly set the special order to come up, its introduction has been accomplished previously, so the interruption wouldn't represent the introduction of a new question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Burke, I stand behind my previous post in this thread, which claims this particular FPPL is not actually concerned with "considering" more than one question at a time; it is, in fact, a prohibition against introducing a new matter before disposing of the pending question (except by the mechanism to Raise a Question of Privelege).

This is evidenced by the fact that the motion "to suspend the rules and adopt all the general orders" is in order if made when no question is pending, but is not in order when any question is pending. The point being that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law cannot be suspended, so it is clear what the FPPL actually is.

That's an interesting reply, especially in the light of the new language, "...even by a unanimous vote", in RONR (11th ed.), p. 263, ll. 17,18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I have nothing against Trina's motion. My comments are concerned with the nature of the FPPL, as stated on the bottom of p. xxxiii and elsewhere.

I'm not quite clear, then, in what respect you disagree with what I said (other than on the minor matter dealt with below).

As for the interruption of a pending question by another, it seems clear that the rule is referring to main motions, not privileged motions, as you mentioned, or any other secondary motion

The statement of the rule says the pending question must be disposed of "before any other business (except certain matters called "privileged questions") can be introduced." RONR (11th ed.), p. 59, ll. 22-23. "The privileged motions as a class are also known as 'privileged questions,' which should not be confused with 'questions of privilege,' . . . ." RONR (11th ed.), p. 67, ll. 5-7.

Moreover, "Unlike subsidiary or incidental motions, 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." RONR (11th ed.), p. 67, ll. 5-7.

I imagine this is pretty academic, however, since I don't imagine you're arguing that the privileged motions other than Raise a Question of Privilege cannot interrupt consideration of a main motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not quite clear, then, in what respect you disagree with what I said (other than on the minor matter dealt with below).

The statement of the rule says the pending question must be disposed of "before any other business (except certain matters called "privileged questions") can be introduced." RONR (11th ed.), p. 59, ll. 22-23. "The privileged motions as a class are also known as 'privileged questions,' which should not be confused with 'questions of privilege,' . . . ." RONR (11th ed.), p. 67, ll. 5-7.

Moreover, "Unlike subsidiary or incidental motions, 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." RONR (11th ed.), p. 67, ll. 5-7.

I imagine this is pretty academic, however, since I don't imagine you're arguing that the privileged motions other than Raise a Question of Privilege cannot interrupt consideration of a main motion.

To clear up the minor matter first, the reason I singled out Raise a Question of Privilege was not because of its own ability to interrupt the consideration of the main motion (a trait it shares with the other privileged motions), but because of its ability to open the gate for a main motion (the question of privilege) to be considered before the pending question is disposed of.

As for my main point, it appears to me that the rule on page 59, ll. 17-26 is clear and concise, except for one small section that is often misconstrued. That section is, "Only one question can be considered at a time."

If those words are removed, the rule will be found to be consistent with the rest of RONR, including the entry on the bottom of p. xxxiii, denoting the establishment of the rule from 1581.

However, if those words remain and are allowed to be twisted into meaning that a member may not make more than one main motion at a time and that the assembly cannot consider more than one main motion at a time... then inconsistencies run amuck through RONR.

I don't think there are such inconsistencies in RONR, except when that one entry has its meaning misconstrued.

It seemed to me that your post allowed for such a misconception (though I'm not suggesting that you misconceived it) so I want to make a point about it: the rule, though potentially misleading, does not mean that only one main motion can be considered at a time; it means one cannot be INTRODUCED while another is pending*.

*The exception, of course, being through the MECHANISM of Raise a Question of Privilege, which allows a MAIN MOTION to be introduced while another main motion is pending. (let's handle this exception separately, if you still disagree about it.)

Other than that, I don't disagree with your post in the slightest. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To clear up the minor matter first, the reason I singled out Raise a Question of Privilege was not because of its own ability to interrupt the consideration of the main motion (a trait it shares with the other privileged motions), but because of its ability to open the gate for a main motion (the question of privilege) to be considered before the pending question is disposed of.

While I agree about the other privileged motions, a Call for the Orders of the Day may cause a special order to become pending before the pending question is disposed of as well, although that's really incidental to the actual Call.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree about the other privileged motions, a Call for the Orders of the Day may cause a special order to become pending before the pending question is disposed of as well, although that's really incidental to the actual Call.

Call for the Orders of the Day does not INTRODUCE a main motion. The matter was introduced when the special order was made.

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 357, ll. 14-19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for my main point, it appears to me that the rule on page 59, ll. 17-26 is clear and concise, except for one small section that is often misconstrued. That section is, "Only one question can be considered at a time."

If those words are removed, the rule will be found to be consistent with the rest of RONR, including the entry on the bottom of p. xxxiii, denoting the establishment of the rule from 1581.

However, if those words remain and are allowed to be twisted into meaning that a member may not make more than one main motion at a time and that the assembly cannot consider more than one main motion at a time... then inconsistencies run amuck through RONR.

"Only one question can be considered at a time" seems pretty clear to me, because I think it means exactly what it says (which is not at all the same thing as saying that only one question can be pending at a time).

And to the best of my knowledge, under the rules in RONR, members may not make more than one main motion at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Only one question can be considered at a time" seems pretty clear to me, because I think it means exactly what it says (which is not at all the same thing as saying that only one question can be pending at a time).

And to the best of my knowledge, under the rules in RONR, members may not make more than one main motion at a time.

See p. 262, ll. 13-18. & p. 274, ll. 32-34.

Yet, no FPPL can be suspended, even by a unanimous vote.

This is a reason (one of many) that I say there is no FPPL prohibiting the making and consideration of multiple main motions at the same time. The prohibition is on introducing a main motion while a question is pending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...