Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

voting


sally

Recommended Posts

I doubt we'll be making much progress as your entire argument is based on the flawed premise that a motion which is renewed at each session is dilatory.

Yes, but the motion was passed the first time,

The fact that the motion in question here is a motion to Rescind does not change my opinion.

and page 331 specifically allows the Chairman to rule the motion out of order if it is deemed to be dilatory.

Yes, but he should only rule it out of order if it is actually dilatory.

However, the repeated renewal of a motion at every meeting is dilatory

I'm not sure you really understand the meaning of the term "dilatory." If it is clear that the motion is being made for the sole purpose of obstructing business, then yes, it is dilatory. But the fact that a motion is made at each new session does not, in and of itself, make the motion dilatory. Provided the member is truly seeking the adoption of the motion, the motion is legitimate from a parliamentary standpoint. It may not be the wisest strategy, but that is beside the point.

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.

Well, I agree that an assembly is likely to do all sorts of improper things when it gets agitated but let's not encourage that. :)

And I certainly wouldn't bring Ch. XX into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it really comes down to whether or not one considers the repeated attempts to pass the same, non-routine, motion at every meeting is an obstruction or not.

On one hand it is not as a member has the right to make motions and try to get motions passed. However, I am of the belief that once a motion is dealt with, it is dealt with. To keep bringing it up again and again is dilatory then, especially after the second attempt, as the outcome is already known from previous attempts (unless the membership has changed or new information is available which may change the otucome of the vote) and therefore is am obstruction of the assembly's ability to deal with other issues in a timely manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it really comes down to whether or not one considers the repeated attempts to pass the same, non-routine, motion at every meeting is an obstruction or not.

"It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from... ... abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business." - p. 331, l. 22-25.

Attempts to pass the same motion are not dilatory, since they are not merely to obstruct business.

However, I am of the belief that once a motion is dealt with, it is dealt with.

This is why Sections 35 and 37 will be removed from the 11th edition. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it really comes down to whether or not one considers the repeated attempts to pass the same, non-routine, motion at every meeting is an obstruction or not.

On one hand it is not as a member has the right to make motions and try to get motions passed. However, I am of the belief that once a motion is dealt with, it is dealt with. To keep bringing it up again and again is dilatory then, especially after the second attempt, as the outcome is already known from previous attempts (unless the membership has changed or new information is available which may change the otucome of the vote) and therefore is am obstruction of the assembly's ability to deal with other issues in a timely manner.

On the other hand, RONR is of the belief that once it is dealt with, it is only dealt with for the remainder of that session. At the next and subsequent sessions it may be renewed, without regard for the chair's belief on what is an "obstruction" and what isn't.

A dilatory motion is not synonymous with an unpopular motion. To be dilatory, its true purpose must be to obstruct, delay, or postpone the proceedings, while only purporting to be for another, valid purpose. But a motion that truly is a bona fide attempt to get the society to do what the motion proposes is not a dilatory motion, even if it is renewed at every subsequent session.

P.S. It is not an attempt to obstruct business--on the contrary, it is an attempt to conduct business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, this may be your view, but it is not mine. If it is obvious to me that a couple members who insist on always bringing up a defeated motion is dilatory as the issue will once again be defeated. And like I said, unless the membership changes, or relevant information changes, if the same motion is being brought up again to once again be defeated, then it is an attempt (whether intentional or not) to hold up the meeting.

Sorry, but you cannot convince me otherwise - just because it may not be an intentional dilatory situation (the member may not be intending to deliberately obstruct a meeting), but if the outcome is already known - in that the motion will once again be defeated - then it is a dilatory situation. Cause and effect comes into play here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, this may be your view, but it is not mine. If it is obvious to me that a couple members who insist on always bringing up a defeated motion is dilatory as the issue will once again be defeated. And like I said, unless the membership changes, or relevant information changes, if the same motion is being brought up again to once again be defeated, then it is an attempt (whether intentional or not) to hold up the meeting.

Sorry, but you cannot convince me otherwise - just because it may not be an intentional dilatory situation (the member may not be intending to deliberately obstruct a meeting), but if the outcome is already known - in that the motion will once again be defeated - then it is a dilatory situation. Cause and effect comes into play here.

I wasn't expressing my personal feelings, I was expressing RONR's rules. [§39]

Unless you can predict the future, you don't know that it will be defeated. And even if you did know, there is no provision in RONR to allow clairvoyant chairs to revoke the basic rights of membership, such as the right to introduce motions.

Whether a motion is dilatory has no relationship to the likelihood of it's being adopted. Even if it could be mathematically proven that the probability of adopting a motion was zero point squat, this proves nothing. No motion offered in good faith can be considered dilatory, even if it takes a little time to dispose of, or is only favored by a minority of a third or less. There are ample safeguards provided in the motion for the Previous Question and several others, should the assembly not wish to debate the motion. But it is the assembly's decision, and not the chair's.

Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are using parliamentary forms for obstructive purposes, he should not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are out of order--but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt.
(emphasis in the original)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, I am of the belief that once a motion is dealt with, it is dealt with.

This very idea conflicts with the principle of the freedom of each new session, as expressed in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 85, lines 14-29.

To keep bringing it up again and again is dilatory then, especially after the second attempt, as the outcome is already known from previous attempts (unless the membership has changed or new information is available which may change the otucome of the vote) and therefore is am obstruction of the assembly's ability to deal with other issues in a timely manner.

A few points:

  • Whether the outcome of the motion is known has nothing to do with whether it is dilatory.
  • The way to determine whether "new information is available which may change the outcome of the vote" is through the deliberative process.
  • If the members feel that the motion is taking up too much time that's what the motions to Limit Debate or for the Previous Question are for.

Sorry, but you cannot convince me otherwise - just because it may not be an intentional dilatory situation (the member may not be intending to deliberately obstruct a meeting), but if the outcome is already known - in that the motion will once again be defeated - then it is a dilatory situation. Cause and effect comes into play here.

An "intentional dilatory situation" is the only kind of dilatory situation there is, which should be obvious from a reading of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 332, lines 1-11 (which Mr. Novosielski has had the good sense to quote). Dilatory tactics are when members intentionally attempt to obstruct the business of the assembly. If a motion is made in good faith, but the members feel it is consuming too much of the assembly's time, there are other parliamentary tools to deal with such a motion.

If an assembly wishes for it to be out of order for motions to be renewed at a subsequent session, the proper course of action would be to adopt a special rule of order on the subject. Another option would be to follow the practice of legislative assemblies and have all meetings for an entire year (or more) constitute one "session." I don't think either of these options is a very good idea, but they could be implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, this may be your view, but it is not mine. If it is obvious to me that a couple members who insist on always bringing up a defeated motion is dilatory as the issue will once again be defeated. And like I said, unless the membership changes, or relevant information changes, if the same motion is being brought up again to once again be defeated, then it is an attempt (whether intentional or not) to hold up the meeting.

Sorry, but you cannot convince me otherwise - just because it may not be an intentional dilatory situation (the member may not be intending to deliberately obstruct a meeting), but if the outcome is already known - in that the motion will once again be defeated - then it is a dilatory situation. Cause and effect comes into play here.

You are dead wrong, Rev. Ed. The only reason I take this so seriously is that your opinion is in direct contradiction to the basic right of an individual member to make motions. I hope you will reconsider your stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An "intentional dilatory situation" is the only kind of dilatory situation there is, which should be obvious from a reading of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 332, lines 1-11 (which Mr. Novosielski has had the good sense to quote). Dilatory tactics are when members intentionally attempt to obstruct the business of the assembly. If a motion is made in good faith, but the members feel it is consuming too much of the assembly's time, there are other parliamentary tools to deal with such a motion.

Okay, let's look at it this way: If I make a motion that is ultimately defeated, and then a bring it up at a later session with the same outcome (i.e. it is defeated), even a gambler will know the result if a bring it up again at a third consecutive session - unless the membership has changed. If I brought the motion back for yet a third time, then it is obvious (at least to me) that I would be obstructing business. Why can't anyone else understand this? It is so simple, it's stupid.

If an assembly wishes for it to be out of order for motions to be renewed at a subsequent session, the proper course of action would be to adopt a special rule of order on the subject. Another option would be to follow the practice of legislative assemblies and have all meetings for an entire year (or more) constitute one "session." I don't think either of these options is a very good idea, but they could be implemented.

Well, if I had to work with a member who insists on continuing to bring up defeated motions, I'd consider the one year session - although I would probably also have no respect for him.

The issue, to me at least, isn't about the "rights" of the individual, but the "rights" of the group not to have to put up with something that is obviously dilatory! And page 331 allows the Chairman to protect the rights of the group by ruling this type of motion out of order. I do not want to be "closed minded" or "dead wrong" but if one or two members are holding up meetings with issues that have been dealt with on two, three, four, or more occasions then the motion becomes dilatroy. I think if you ask any non-parilimentary person if they would mind this occuring all the time, I bet you would see a surrounding "no".

Yes, it is easy to allow the motion, immediately vote to close debate, and then defeat the motion - but this should not have to occur at every new session merely to protect the "rights" of one or two members when the majority have a right not to deal with an issue that can be seen as dilatory.

Again, I really see a motion that has been defeated more than twice in the past to be dilatory unless there is a real chance that the motion may pass - and unless the members of the group have changed, it is not likely to pass (actually, a member in reality would likely face political backfire to continue this type of behaviour even if it his/her right to do so as other members are likely not to appreciate it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's look at it this way: If I make a motion that is ultimately defeated, and then a bring it up at a later session with the same outcome (i.e. it is defeated), even a gambler will know the result if a bring it up again at a third consecutive session - unless the membership has changed. If I brought the motion back for yet a third time, then it is obvious (at least to me) that I would be obstructing business. Why can't anyone else understand this? It is so simple, it's stupid.

Well, if I had to work with a member who insists on continuing to bring up defeated motions, I'd consider the one year session - although I would probably also have no respect for him.

The issue, to me at least, isn't about the "rights" of the individual, but the "rights" of the group not to have to put up with something that is obviously dilatory! And page 331 allows the Chairman to protect the rights of the group by ruling this type of motion out of order. I do not want to be "closed minded" or "dead wrong" but if one or two members are holding up meetings with issues that have been dealt with on two, three, four, or more occasions then the motion becomes dilatroy. I think if you ask any non-parilimentary person if they would mind this occuring all the time, I bet you would see a surrounding "no".

Yes, it is easy to allow the motion, immediately vote to close debate, and then defeat the motion - but this should not have to occur at every new session merely to protect the "rights" of one or two members when the majority have a right not to deal with an issue that can be seen as dilatory.

Again, I really see a motion that has been defeated more than twice in the past to be dilatory unless there is a real chance that the motion may pass - and unless the members of the group have changed, it is not likely to pass (actually, a member in reality would likely face political backfire to continue this type of behaviour even if it his/her right to do so as other members are likely not to appreciate it.)

The other respondents have already pointed out the legitimate procedures for getting rid of an unfortunate or unprofitable main motion. For the chairman to misuse the rules under the color of his authority to disenfranchise the members of their basic rights is a shortcut to being deposed from office for misconduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's look at it this way: If I make a motion that is ultimately defeated, and then a bring it up at a later session with the same outcome (i.e. it is defeated), even a gambler will know the result if a bring it up again at a third consecutive session - unless the membership has changed. If I brought the motion back for yet a third time, then it is obvious (at least to me) that I would be obstructing business. Why can't anyone else understand this? It is so simple, it's stupid.

Well, if I had to work with a member who insists on continuing to bring up defeated motions, I'd consider the one year session - although I would probably also have no respect for him.

The issue, to me at least, isn't about the "rights" of the individual, but the "rights" of the group not to have to put up with something that is obviously dilatory! And page 331 allows the Chairman to protect the rights of the group by ruling this type of motion out of order. I do not want to be "closed minded" or "dead wrong" but if one or two members are holding up meetings with issues that have been dealt with on two, three, four, or more occasions then the motion becomes dilatroy. I think if you ask any non-parilimentary person if they would mind this occuring all the time, I bet you would see a surrounding "no".

Yes, it is easy to allow the motion, immediately vote to close debate, and then defeat the motion - but this should not have to occur at every new session merely to protect the "rights" of one or two members when the majority have a right not to deal with an issue that can be seen as dilatory.

Again, I really see a motion that has been defeated more than twice in the past to be dilatory unless there is a real chance that the motion may pass - and unless the members of the group have changed, it is not likely to pass (actually, a member in reality would likely face political backfire to continue this type of behaviour even if it his/her right to do so as other members are likely not to appreciate it.)

Nevertheless, your opinions are directly contradicted by the rules presented in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition, which is the whole point of this forum.

As such, they are, in my view, inappropriate as a reply to someone presumably seeking facts on proper procedure, rather than opinions on how best to abridge democratic rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's look at it this way: If I make a motion that is ultimately defeated, and then a bring it up at a later session with the same outcome (i.e. it is defeated), even a gambler will know the result if a bring it up again at a third consecutive session - unless the membership has changed. If I brought the motion back for yet a third time, then it is obvious (at least to me) that I would be obstructing business. Why can't anyone else understand this? It is so simple, it's stupid.

I understand perfectly everything you just said, and agree with it (although I would add the "or new information" caveat after the bit about the membership changes). It's just all irrelevant to whether the motion is dilatory. You are continuing to equate "obstructing business" with "dilatory," but you are missing the critical factor of "intent."

If you're bringing this motion up again for the purpose of obstructing business, then it is dilatory. But if you really are attempting to get your motion adopted, and the fact that it is obstructing business is merely an unfortunate consequence of this, then it is not dilatory. Whether the motion maker is aware of the potential for obstruction is also irrelevant. For dilatory motions, intent is everything.

although I would probably also have no respect for him.

I probably wouldn't either, but that's beside the point. :)

The issue, to me at least, isn't about the "rights" of the individual, but the "rights" of the group not to have to put up with something that is obviously dilatory!

But your whole argument about the motion being "obviously dilatory" is based on a misunderstanding of the definition of dilatory.

I do not want to be "closed minded" or "dead wrong" but if one or two members are holding up meetings with issues that have been dealt with on two, three, four, or more occasions then the motion becomes dilatroy.

No, it doesn't. How many times the motion has been dealt with in previous sessions is irrelevant. Additionally, if its only one or two members they will be unsuccessful in holding up the meeting. If it's one member, the motion will not even receive a second to come before the assembly. If it's two, then the assembly can easily adopt the motion for the Previous Question and quickly dispose of the motion for the duration of the session.

I think if you ask any non-parilimentary person if they would mind this occuring all the time, I bet you would see a surrounding "no".

I think you mean "resounding." But if these are the same non-parliamentary people who think, among other things, that the motion to table is the appropriate motion to postpone (or kill) motions, that a motion maker can accept a "friendly amendment," and that minutes should include a summary of discussion, then I'm not too inclined to listen to their opinions on the proper interpretation of RONR. :)

Yes, it is easy to allow the motion, immediately vote to close debate, and then defeat the motion - but this should not have to occur at every new session merely to protect the "rights" of one or two members when the majority have a right not to deal with an issue that can be seen as dilatory.

It would have to be at least two members. The majority does not have a right to not deal with issues that "can be seen" as dilatory, only motions which truly are dilatory. The rights of the individual members prevail in this instance. Additionally, I think you go down a very slippery slope when you put "rights" in quotes just because you don't like what people are doing with their rights. :)

Again, I really see a motion that has been defeated more than twice in the past to be dilatory unless there is a real chance that the motion may pass - and unless the members of the group have changed, it is not likely to pass

Well, you're failing to include the "new information" bit from earlier, which is also always a possibility. Additionally, it should be clear from a reading of RONR that at least as far as RONR is concerned, motions are dilatory only when it is clear that the intent is to obstruct business.

(actually, a member in reality would likely face political backfire to continue this type of behaviour even if it his/her right to do so as other members are likely not to appreciate it.)

I agree that the member is likely to face political backfire. I never suggested it would be a wise decision to continually renew a motion at each session. Such a member is likely to alienate the other members of the society. Nevertheless, when push comes to shove, I fear the power of a domineering chair and/or majority than the annoyance of a persistent individual member or minority. :)

After all, it's only a short step from this for a member to argue that even a brand-new motion is dilatory if it is "obvious" that it has no chance of adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nevertheless, your opinions are directly contradicted by the rules presented in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 10th edition, which is the whole point of this forum.

As such, they are, in my view, inappropriate as a reply to someone presumably seeking facts on proper procedure, rather than opinions on how best to abridge democratic rights.

No!!! Just a different interruptation of the rules with regards to the orginal question. I am not talking about abridge rights, but dealing with an issue. You may not see this as being dilatory, but I do. I am sorry if others cannot understand it, but I have explained myself many times, even giving a direct example of how this is can be deemed dilatory and yet others refuse to listen. At this organization in question, I doubt that the majority would agree with you about what you are saying as they are the ones dealing with this - and I have as well - and I can tell you that after awhile it does clearly become dilatory. My response was, and is, based on practical experience in a similar situation. We finally got a new person to fill the position, which was a relief to the rest of the group. If I had known then about page 133, the issue would have been dealt with a lot faster with more respect for the people involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is easy to allow the motion, immediately vote to close debate, and then defeat the motion - but this should not have to occur at every new session merely to protect the "rights" of one or two members when the majority have a right not to deal with an issue that can be seen as dilatory.

Debate cannot be immediately closed, against the will of the mover. He will have ten minutes to debate, before anyone can obtain the floor for the purpose of moving to close debate, and he will undoubtedly consume this time fully, if, as you say, his intention is to be obstructive.

If you're the chair, you can say, "It is moved and seconded that ______________________. The chair objects to the consideration of the question. Shall the question be considered? Those in favor of considering it, rise... Be seated. Those opposed to considering the question, rise... Be seated. There are two thirds opposed and the question will not be considered."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No!!! Just a different interruptation of the rules with regards to the orginal question.

Please explain how your interpretation is consistent with what is said on RONR, 10th ed., pg. 332, lines 1-11, particularly lines 7-9.

I am not talking about abridge rights, but dealing with an issue.

Yeah, but you can't abridge rights just so you can "deal with an issue."

You may not see this as being dilatory, but I do. I am sorry if others cannot understand it, but I have explained myself many times, even giving a direct example of how this is can be deemed dilatory and yet others refuse to listen.

I understand it, I just disagree with you.

At this organization in question, I doubt that the majority would agree with you about what you are saying as they are the ones dealing with this - and I have as well - and I can tell you that after awhile it does clearly become dilatory.

Organizations do all sorts of improper things. This doesn't mean I have to encourage them.

My response was, and is, based on practical experience in a similar situation. We finally got a new person to fill the position, which was a relief to the rest of the group. If I had known then about page 133, the issue would have been dealt with a lot faster with more respect for the people involved.

Well, if "respect" was an issue, I suspect what is said on RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 379-382 would be more relevant.

Incidentally, was this an officer position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debate cannot be immediately closed, against the will of the mover. He will have ten minutes to debate, before anyone can obtain the floor for the purpose of moving to close debate, and he will undoubtedly consume this time fully, if, as you say, his intention is to be obstructive.

If you're the chair, you can say, "It is moved and seconded that ______________________. The chair objects to the consideration of the question. Shall the question be considered? Those in favor of considering it, rise... Be seated. Those opposed to considering the question, rise... Be seated. There are two thirds opposed and the question will not be considered."

That's quite true about an original main motion. Experience on this forum shows, though, that the motion is often in the nature of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, an incidental main motion to which an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No!!! Just a different interruptation [<- love it] of the rules with regards to the orginal question. I am not talking about abridge rights, but dealing with an issue. You may not see this as being dilatory, but I do. I am sorry if others cannot understand it, but I have explained myself many times, even giving a direct example of how this is can be deemed dilatory and yet others refuse to listen.

By your own rules, then, you are clearly engaging in dilatory behavior!

(How does it feel?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite true about an original main motion. Experience on this forum shows, though, that the motion is often in the nature of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, an incidental main motion to which an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied.

Well, if it's an IMM, Rev Ed will just have to walk out of the room for a few minutes, I guess. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...