voting

[sally]

A motion was made and a topic was voted on and passed. Can the same topic be voted on adnausium from now on, or at what point may a point of orsder be called to stop further discussion on the matter?

[Tim Wynn]

A motion was made and a topic was voted on and passed. Can the same topic be voted on adnausium from now on, or at what point may a point of orsder be called to stop further discussion on the matter?

It is not in order to make a motion that presents the same question as a motion that has been adopted and is still in force.

[Tim Wynn]

Debate is not allowed when no motion is pending.

[hmtcastle]

Can the same topic be voted on adnausium . . .

And the proper term is "ad nauseam" (which I used to mis-spell as "ad nauseum").

[Rev Ed]

The first time the matter is brought up again, a point of order can be made. This is especially true if the motion passed and is still in force. If the motion failed, and is brought up more than once within a three month (quarterly) period, then the Chairman can rule the motion out of order as the assembly has obviously dealt with the issue and another vote will not change anything.

[hmtcastle]

If the motion failed, and is brought up more than once within a three month (quarterly) period, then the Chairman can rule the motion out of order . . .

Huh?

[Rob Elsman]

The first time the matter is brought up again, a point of order can be made. This is especially true if the motion passed and is still in force. If the motion failed, and is brought up more than once within a three month (quarterly) period, then the Chairman can rule the motion out of order as the assembly has obviously dealt with the issue and another vote will not change anything.

I disagree. A main motion that has been rejected can be renewed at any later session, even if the later session is held within a three-month, or quarterly, period. Indeed, for an assembly that regularly meets weekly or monthly, it is perfectly proper for a main motion that is repeatedly rejected to be renewed at each weekly or monthly meeting. See RONR (10th ed.), §38, pp. 325ff.

[Rev Ed]

Then I have to double check my copy of RONR, as I thought that RONR allows the Chairman to rule a motion out of or if it is clearly meant as a waste of time (in that it has already been dealt with in a recent period of time.)

[Tim Wynn]

Then I have to double check my copy of RONR, as I thought that RONR allows the Chairman to rule a motion out of or if it is clearly meant as a waste of time (in that it has already been dealt with in a recent period of time.)

You might want to return your copy.

[Rob Elsman]

Then I have to double check my copy of RONR, as I thought that RONR allows the Chairman to rule a motion out of or if it is clearly meant as a waste of time (in that it has already been dealt with in a recent period of time.)

By itself, the renewal of a repeatedly-rejected main motion at each session is not out of order on account that it is dilatory. Rather, it is the proper exercise of the right of an individual member to make motions. No doubt, this kind of renewal may be aggrevating to a slim majority if the motion is perceived as unfortunate or unprofitable, but the consideration of such a motion is considered worthwhile. Of course, such a motion can be quickly disposed of if there is the two-thirds vote necessary to kill it and supress it.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A motion was made and a topic was voted on and passed.

Q. Can the same topic be voted on, [again], from now on?

Yes.

But not within the same session.

(Technical note: A "session" is a meeting or a connected series of meetings dedicated to one order of business. For the average organization, its monthly meeting is exactly one session.)

You say your motion was adopted.

Therefore, applying the rule, for example, a motion adopted in your January meeting can indeed be:

• targeted for rescission in the February meeting, and, if not successful,

• targeted for rescission in your March meeting, and, if not successful,

• targeted for rescission in your April meeting, [...]

Ad nauseam!

Q. At what point may a point of order be called to stop further discussion on the matter?

It cannot. - Except for the same meeting as the adoption - i.e., within the same session (see above).

[Rob Elsman]

Yes.

But not within the same session.

(Technical note: A "session" is a meeting or a connected series of meetings dedicated to one order of business. For the average organization, its monthly meeting is exactly one session.)

You say your motion was adopted.

Therefore, applying the rule, for example, a motion adopted in your January meeting can indeed be:

• targeted for rescission in the February meeting, and, if not successful,

• targeted for rescission in your March meeting, and, if not successful,

• targeted for rescission in your April meeting, [...]

Ad nauseam!

It cannot. - Except for the same meeting as the adoption - i.e., within the same session (see above).

Well, the main motion can be brought back before the assembly upon reconsideration. See RONR (10th ed.), §37, pp. 304ff.

[Rev Ed]

By itself, the renewal of a repeatedly-rejected main motion at each session is not out of order on account that it is dilatory. Rather, it is the proper exercise of the right of an individual member to make motions. No doubt, this kind of renewal may be aggrevating to a slim majority if the motion is perceived as unfortunate or unprofitable, but the consideration of such a motion is considered worthwhile. Of course, such a motion can be quickly disposed of if there is the two-thirds vote necessary to kill it and supress it.

Okay, I found my mistake - it is within the same session, and not at another session. I also double checked with RONR (i.e. "the book".)

Of course if the same member, or same group of members, bring up the same motion meeting after meeting with the same effect (either passing, or more likely defeating the motion) the organization could always flip to Chapter XX of RONR to take actions if friendly requests are being ignored, or other measures prove inadequate. There is no reason, or excuse, why an organization always has to defeat the same motion at every meeting.

[hmtcastle]

Of course if the same member, or same group of members, bring up the same motion meeting after meeting with the same effect (either passing, or more likely defeating the motion) the organization could always flip to Chapter XX of RONR to take actions if friendly requests are being ignored, or other measures prove inadequate. There is no reason, or excuse, why an organization always has to defeat the same motion at every meeting.

It's very doubtful that merely renewing a defeated motion at each meeting would be cause for disciplinary action. There are other, non-punitive, ways of dealing with it.

[Rev Ed]

It's very doubtful that merely renewing a defeated motion at each meeting would be cause for disciplinary action. There are other, non-punitive, ways of dealing with it.

It is an option - although it should be a last resort. Another better option would be to refer the motion to a committee. That would at least deal with the issue for a couple months (or whenever the deadline for a report would be.)

[Rob Elsman]

It is an option - although it should be a last resort. Another better option would be to refer the motion to a committee. That would at least deal with the issue for a couple months (or whenever the deadline for a report would be.)

The subsidiary motion Commit is not the proper motion to use to kill a main motion; rather, an original main motion can be killed by a two-thirds negative vote on an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, or the assembly can just reject the motion directly or indirectly. Debate and amendment of the motion can be shut off by a two-thirds vote for the Previous Question.

The renewal of a motion under the rules is a legitimate parliamentary action that should not be the object of a disciplinary action.

[Tim Wynn]

The subsidiary motion Commit is not the proper motion to use to kill a main motion; rather, an original main motion can be killed by a two-thirds negative vote on an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, or the assembly can just reject the motion directly or indirectly. Debate and amendment of the motion can be shut off by a two-thirds vote for the Previous Question.

The renewal of a motion under the rules is a legitimate parliamentary action that should not be the object of a disciplinary action.

Well said.

[Rev Ed]

The subsidiary motion Commit is not the proper motion to use to kill a main motion;

Yes, but at least it would deal with the issue (i.e. let another group look into it) and stop the issue from coming up at every single meeting (at least until the Committee has presented its report.)

[Trina]

Yes, but at least it would deal with the issue (i.e. let another group look into it) and stop the issue from coming up at every single meeting (at least until the Committee has presented its report.)

Except, see the motion to discharge a committee (RONR pp. 299-304), for the new motion which can now be made at every single meeting by those same persistent members.

[Rob Elsman]

Except, see the motion to discharge a committee (RONR pp. 299-304), for the new motion which can now be made at every single meeting by those same persistent members.

That's right. And, a motion to Discharge a Committee opens up for debate not only the merits of the motion to Discharge, but also the merits of the motion or topic in the control of the committee. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 300, ll. 31, 32.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, but at least it would deal with the issue (i.e. let another group look into it) and stop the issue from coming up at every single meeting (at least until the Committee has presented its report.)

If the assembly truly wishes for a committee to review the motion and make a recommendation on it, then by all means the assembly should refer the motion to the committee. But it is inappropriate and ineffective to use the motion to Commit as a means to "bottle up" a motion.

[Rev Ed]

Or read Section 39 of RONR starting on page 331 about dilatory motions. The Chairman has the right to rule a motion out of order as "It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the priviliege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business." (RONR pg. 331 l. 22-25)

If a motion is consistently brought up again and again, that Chairman could use the above mentioned section of RONR to rule a motion out of order, at least in my humble opinion.

[George Mervosh]

Or read Section 39 of RONR starting on page 331 about dilatory motions. The Chairman has the right to rule a motion out of order as "It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the priviliege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business." (RONR pg. 331 l. 22-25)

If a motion is consistently brought up again and again, that Chairman could use the above mentioned section of RONR to rule a motion out of order, at least in my humble opinion.

I guess you didn't read Rob Elsman's reply Posted 19 October 2010 - 01:39 PM did you?

[Josh Martin]

Or read Section 39 of RONR starting on page 331 about dilatory motions. The Chairman has the right to rule a motion out of order as "It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the priviliege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business." (RONR pg. 331 l. 22-25)

If a motion is consistently brought up again and again, that Chairman could use the above mentioned section of RONR to rule a motion out of order, at least in my humble opinion.

I agree with Mr. Elsman that a motion which is renewed at subsequent sessions is not dilatory. When RONR speaks of "abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions," it is referring to certain motions that may be renewed within the same session. For instance, repeated motions to adjourn could be dilatory.

Based on the principle of the freedom of each session, I think it is indeed a member's right to attempt to have his motion adopted at each new session. If the assembly doesn't want to spend much time on it, it can order the previous question. If the assembly really wants to prevent it from being moved at each session, it would take a rule at least on the level of a special rule of order.

[Rev Ed]

Yes, but the motion was passed the first time, and page 331 specifically allows the Chairman to rule the motion out of order if it is deemed to be dilatory. I found this page the other day when I was looking for something else. Of course, should the member making the motion decide to appeal, it is his/her privilege.

However, the repeated renewal of a motion at every meeting is dilatory and may be seen by the majority as being a obstruction of business and I doubt that the majority of members are likely to disagree with the Chairman ruling the motion out of order. Of course, perhaps Chapter XX of RONR may be of benefit if the majority believes that a couple of members are intentionally trying to slow down a meeting by always bringing up dilatory motions.