Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Postpone Indefinitely & Limit Debate


Guest Ron Herbison

Recommended Posts

I don't know if I am overthinking this situation, which is possible.  However I am not finding clarity in the text.  My specific question is, if a motion to limit debate specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken has been adopted and the time has not yet arrived is the motion to postpone indefinitely in order?

 

It seems that if the motion to postpone indefinitely is adopted under an order that a vote be taken at a specific time prior to that designated time being reached would conflict with the previous order.  Much like the motions to Commit or Postpone to a Certain time cannot be made after an order to limit debate by providing when to close debate has been adopted, regardless of whether it specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken, as it conflicts with the previous order limiting debate.  It makes sense that no subsidiary motion, other than Lay on the Table, can be made after the time specified at which to vote has arrived, as it would violate the order on when the vote would be taken. It also makes sense that undebatable motions to Amend and Postpone Indefinitely can be made after the time to close debate has arrived that the order did not specify when the vote to be taken, as the order only specifies to close of debate.  I am not sure it makes sense for the motion to be disposed of prior to the specified time a vote has been ordered regardless if the motion that would dispose of the underlying motion was made prior to or after the order of specifying the time at which the vote is to be taken as it violates that order.  That order in all instances has been adopted by a 2/3s vote.  Is it not unfair to members who leave expecting a vote to not happen until a later time because of the order if that vote happens prior to the scheduled time?

 

I know that the response is going to be along the lines of the specific language that the presiding officer uses when stating the question.  Specifically on pg 197 ln 1-2, "It is moved and seconded that no later than 9 p.m. debate be closed and the question on the resolution be put."  This conflicts with the language used in the Form and Example (a) on pg 196 ln 14-15 "I move that at 9 p.m debate be closed and the question on the resolution be put to a vote", in the Form and Example (d) on pg 196 ln 29 - 30 "provided that all pending questions shall be put to a vote at 4 p.m.", in Further Rules and Explanation on pg 194 ln 10 "specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken", and ln 29 - 30 "specifies that hour at which the vote shall be taken. If the motion specifies AT a specific time how can it be disposed of, or even voted on prior to that specific time? If the presiding officer stated the question incorrectly and used the language "at" instead of "no later" would that affect the effect of the motion?  Is there not a correlation here with setting a general order or special order at a specific time?

 

What is the purpose of this contradictory language?  We are very specific, even overly anal, regarding language.  i.e. ".. to cost $XX" vs. "...not to exceed $XX".  

 

Any thoughts and explanations are greatly appreciated.  Thanks in advance.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My specific question is, if a motion to limit debate specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken has been adopted and the time has not yet arrived is the motion to postpone indefinitely in order?  

 

Yes. If the purpose of the motion to limit debate is to close debate at a certain time, then motions to commit or to postpone to a certain time are not in order since those motions may allow debate beyond the time that was set. The "order" to limit debate is not the same as setting a general order or special order (see RONR 11th ed., p. 191, ll. 30-32). Before the time that was provided for closing debate has arrived, the main motion may be disposed of by being adopted, defeated or postponed indefinitely and it could also be amended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I appreciate the response. I think it misses the larger questions and the actual text I am asking about.  I am not confusing the word "order" here as "the technical terms order of the day, general order, and special order."  (Pg 191 ln 31-32) but completely understanding it as "to adopt an 'order' taking such action." (Pg 101 ln 29- 30.) Think more military order that something be done.  I am posing that question as there seems to be a correlation (not direct link) with creating an "order" as used in the technical terms.

 

However, that is not the larger issue.  The larger issue is disposing of a main motion prior to the time AT which the vote shall be taken.  Does voting on the motion prior to the established time violate the order (non-technical)?  By specifying the hour at which the vote shall be taken, the motion does more than just close debate.  It requires the vote to occur at that time.  

 

If this is not the intent then shouldn't the language in the text be changed to specify the hour by which the vote shall be taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer to your specific question is yes, if an adopted motion to limit debate specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken and that time has not yet arrived, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is in order. Motions to Commit and to Postpone to a Certain Time are the only subsidiary motions that cannot be made under such circumstances.

 

The purpose and effect of an order limiting debate is to ensure that debate will not extend beyond the length of time or the hour specified, and not to ensure that it will continue for that length of time or until that hour has arrived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, that is not the larger issue.  The larger issue is disposing of a main motion prior to the time AT which the vote shall be taken.  Does voting on the motion prior to the established time violate the order (non-technical)?  By specifying the hour at which the vote shall be taken, the motion does more than just close debate.  It requires the vote to occur at that time.

If you take this perspective, then it is also out of order for the chair to put the question to a vote if there are no more speakers, and the assembly must sit around on its thumbs until the time arrives.

An assembly can schedule a vote to take place at a specific time, but a motion to limit debate does not ordinarily do such a thing, because it serves the purpose described by Dan above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The short answer to your specific question is yes, if an adopted motion to limit debate specifies the hour at which the vote shall be taken and that time has not yet arrived, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is in order. Motions to Commit and to Postpone to a Certain Time are the only subsidiary motions that cannot be made under such circumstances.

 

The purpose and effect of an order limiting debate is to ensure that debate will not extend beyond the length of time or the hour specified, and not to ensure that it will continue for that length of time or until that hour has arrived.

 

And I hope it would be correct to assume that a motion to Extend the Limits of Debate would behave in a similar manner, setting a new limit for debate that was more extensive than the old, but nevertheless still treated as an upper limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...