Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Recommended Posts

Whether or not a question can be divided at all or if it can be divided by demand seems to turn on the criteria of whether the a single question can be modified into two separate questions or if a series of independent resolutions/motions is offered. My question is this: what if a single motion is offered that is comprised of series of independent bullet points, can it be divided on demand, or must a motion Division of the Question be used? 

The Society Finance Committee recommends the assembly approve the following to increase revenue for the society:

a. increasing dues by $10

b. consolidating regions X and Y

c. changing the location of our annual meeting to St Louis.

I recognize, of course, that the ideal situation is to encourage members to motions in a clearer format, but that is not always the case.

 

Edited by Setemu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say those points are independent of one another (at least based on the descriptions of the points) and can therefore be separated out on the demand of a single member. Page 274.

They all deal with the "same topic" -- "increasing revenue" -- to be sure, but adopting/defeating one won't influence the disposition of the others.  No contingencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Setemu said:

Whether or not a question can be divided at all or if it can be divided by demand seems to turn on the criteria of whether the a single question can be modified into two separate questions or if a series of independent resolutions/motions is offered. My question is this: what if a single motion is offered that is comprised of series of independent bullet points, can it be divided on demand, or must a motion Division of the Question be used? 

The Society Finance Committee recommends the assembly approve the following to increase revenue for the society:

a. increasing dues by $10

b. consolidating regions X and Y

c. changing the location of our annual meeting to St Louis.

I recognize, of course, that the ideal situation is to encourage members to motions in a clearer format, but that is not always the case.

 

I agree with Dr. Stackpole.

All of them have could have an impact on revenue, but points B and C will almost certainly have greater impact on other things than revenue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my instinct as well.  Here is a follow up question. RONR states, regarding the division of the question "Usually, though, little formality is involved in dividing a question, and it is arranged by unanimous consent" (p. 272). Let's say the chair allows the question to be divided on demand, and, after the first demand is made, a member raises an objection, wanting vote on whether the question should be divided (essentially wanting to make a motion Division of the Question), does the chair treat this as a point of order or put the question whether to divide on demand to a vote (or some other option)?

Share this post


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

That was my instinct as well.  Here is a follow up question. RONR states, regarding the division of the question "Usually, though, little formality is involved in dividing a question, and it is arranged by unanimous consent" (p. 272). Let's say the chair allows the question to be divided on demand, and, after the first demand is made, a member raises an objection, wanting vote on whether the question should be divided (essentially wanting to make a motion Division of the Question), does the chair treat this as a point of order or put the question whether to divide on demand to a vote (or some other option)?

I think this would be treated as an appeal of his ruling that motion can be divided on demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Setemu said:

Let's say the chair allows the question to be divided on demand, and, after the first demand is made, a member raises an objection, wanting vote on whether the question should be divided (essentially wanting to make a motion Division of the Question)

Assuming the chair said that the motion can be divided on the demand of a single member, it is a point of order.  If the chair said "if there is no objection, the motion is divided" or something to that effect, it's an objection to unanimous consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.  That is how I treated it the last time, and I wanted to make sure for near future reference I had it right. You all are of immense help to this novice parliamentarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I think this would be treated as an appeal of his ruling that motion can be divided on demand.

I agree.  An objection would not be appropriate because this is anything but a unanimous consent request.  If the chair has ruled that the single demand for division is appropriate, then an Appeal is the recourse.

Another possible scenario when dealing with committee recommendations is that the chair may assume them to be separate motions and state them separately in the first place.

But I think that because these three choices, while independent, deal with the same topic, a case could be made that the decision to divide should be up to assembly.

Share this post


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

Whether or not a question can be divided at all or if it can be divided by demand seems to turn on the criteria of whether the a single question can be modified into two separate questions or if a series of independent resolutions/motions is offered. My question is this: what if a single motion is offered that is comprised of series of independent bullet points, can it be divided on demand, or must a motion Division of the Question be used? 

The Society Finance Committee recommends the assembly approve the following to increase revenue for the society:

a. increasing dues by $10

b. consolidating regions X and Y

c. changing the location of our annual meeting to St Louis.

I recognize, of course, that the ideal situation is to encourage members to motions in a clearer format, but that is not always the case.

 

Yes, it is difficult to divide a motion that has never been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

Would anything prevent someone from moving a Motion To Consider As A Whole (p. 278) after it has been divided, or perhaps Reconsider, and what after it has been partially voted on, could it still be considered as a whole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Would anything prevent someone from moving a Motion To Consider As A Whole (p. 278) after it has been divided, or perhaps Reconsider, and what after it has been partially voted on, could it still be considered as a whole?

If a member can demand a division (which was the question in this case), it would take a successful appeal of the chair's ruling that it can be divided on demand to prevent it from happening.  If a motion to divide the question is applicable it cannot be reconsidered (p. 272).  I don't think considering as a whole applies to these things (but I'm happy to let someone else tackle that one).

Edited by George Mervosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

If a member can demand a division (which was the question in this case), it would take a successful appeal of the chair's ruling that it can be divided on demand to prevent it from happening.  If a motion to divide the question is applicable it cannot be reconsidered (p. 272).  I don't think considering as a whole applies to these things (but I'm happy to let someone else tackle that one).

I think you're right about the inapplicability of a motion to consider as a whole, but since nothing that has been discussed so far appears to be applicable to the facts as originally stated, why worry about such things now.  :) 

Share this post


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

I think you're right about the inapplicability of a motion to consider as a whole, but since nothing that has been discussed so far appears to be applicable to the facts as originally stated, why worry about such things now.  :) 

Yes, as you noted earlier, but I think Guest Zev's question was generic enough.  But ok, I'm done now.  Back to my paying job.  :) 

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...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  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

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×