Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Consideration as a whole


Guest Sharon W

Recommended Posts

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

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

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.

I don't think that anyone has said that there is a FPPL prohibiting the making of multiple main motions at the same time (although neither of the examples you cite is an example of it happening). There is a fundamental principal prohibiting consideration of two motions at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stumbling block here seems to be a feeling that if motions are combined, then more than one question is being considered. Yet if multiple motions are (properly) combined into one motion, they become one question. So, in the example on p. 262, ll. 8-17 -- the combination of Suspend the Rules with another motion "[w]hen the purpose of a motion to Suspend the Rules is to permit the making of another motion, and the adoption of the first motion would obviously be followed by the adoption of the second" -- the question becomes whether to suspend the rules and adopt the motion to XYZ.

The fuss here seems to obscure what seems to me the rather obvious point of the FPPL: that, if a main motion is pending, one can neither move the adoption of some other main motion, nor take up consideration of another main motion (even if previously introduced), during the first motion's consideration, without either first using one of the many available motions that dispose of the pending question "in some other way" than voting it up or down, or else using one of the "privileged questions" that legitimately interrupt its consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that anyone has said that there is a FPPL prohibiting the making of multiple main motions at the same time (although neither of the examples you cite is an example of it happening). There is a fundamental principal prohibiting consideration of two motions at the same time.

"... one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member...". p. 274, ll. 34-36.

What happened to the FPPL?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy, my point is that if no member demands separate consideration, the resolutions (or main motions) will be considered together... at the same time.

And my point is, to quote myself, "if multiple motions are (properly) combined into one motion, they become one question." The sentence immediately preceding that to which you refer is explicit: "Sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion." RONR (11th ed.), p. 274, ll. 32-34 (emphasis added).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying, as a thought experiment, to come up with a situation where violation of the FPPL you guys are discussing would lead to a continuing breach. Because an action taken in violation of a FPPL should lead to a continuing breach (p. 251(d)), right?

The continuing breach ends when one of the motions is no longer immediately pending

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So what happens when the Special Order set for 3PM comes up and bumps heads with the motion that's being considered? The motion without priority is still lingering there while you're considering the special order, right? Two main motions are pending but only one, the special order, is being considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my point is, to quote myself, "if multiple motions are (properly) combined into one motion, they become one question." The sentence immediately preceding that to which you refer is explicit: "Sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion." RONR (11th ed.), p. 274, ll. 32-34 (emphasis added).

That sentence contains the words, "main motions."

Remember, I believe the rules in RONR are in accord with the FPPL, and I have no problem with the language in the cited text.

I just feel that the language "Only one question can be considered at a time" is, at best, potentially misleading and superfluous. If it were removed from p. 59, nothing would be changed. The rules in RONR would be consistent, and I would move on to some other topic :)

By the way, the reason one of the several resolutions can be separated by the demand of a single member is because... it is a separate resolution (or main motion). It's a strange play on words to suggest that RONR specifically recognizes them as separate motions and crafts rules around that fact, but then denies that they are separate motions for the purpose conforming with the language on page 59.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel that the language "Only one question can be considered at a time" is, at best, potentially misleading and superfluous. If it were removed from p. 59, nothing would be changed. The rules in RONR would be consistent, and I would move on to some other topic :)

The rules in RONR are consistent, and yes, it's time for you to move on to some other topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just feel that the language "Only one question can be considered at a time" is, at best, potentially misleading and superfluous. If it were removed from p. 59, nothing would be changed. The rules in RONR would be consistent, and I would move on to some other topic :)

Are you proposing to continue arguing your point on this thread until the release of a 12th edition in which the language has been removed? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what happens when the Special Order set for 3PM comes up and bumps heads with the motion that's being considered? The motion without priority is still lingering there while you're considering the special order, right? Two main motions are pending but only one, the special order, is being considered.

I've answered this in a previous post in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a strange play on words to suggest that RONR specifically recognizes them as separate motions and crafts rules around that fact, but then denies that they are separate motions for the purpose conforming with the language on page 59.

While I hate to be waspish, may I suggest you look up the dictionary definition of "combined"? If you took high school chemistry, remember that elements can be combined into a compound, and that they can be separated again. Would you say that we should never refer to salt as one thing because it is a combination of sodium and chloride, a combination that can, through the appropriate chemical reaction, be separated into sodium and chloride again?

Sorry -- I missed the fact that this thread has been ended!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...