Suspend the Rules and order the Previous Question

[Chris Harrison]

Suppose that an organization had adopted a rule that virtually everyone is in favor of. However, there are a very few members who meeting after meeting move to Rescind the rule and each and every time the motion to Rescind is solidly defeated. If at some point the assembly wants to defeat the motion as soon as it was made would it be in order to move to Suspend the Rules (regarding the motion maker getting first crack at debating the question) and order the Previous Question?

[Matt Schafer]

It would be difficult to make the motion to Suspend the Rules, since it is not in order to make that motion when another member has the floor, and the rules for assigning the floor give preference to the maker of the motion.

You can accomplish your goal by Objecting to the Consideration of the Question, which can be moved before any debate has begun, even if the floor has been assigned to a member to begin debate.

[Steven Britton]

You can accomplish your goal by Objecting to the Consideration of the Question, which can be moved before any debate has begun, even if the floor has been assigned to a member to begin debate.

Except under those circumstances, Object to Consideration is not in order. It may only be applied to an Original Main Motion and to petitions and communications that are not from a superior body.

Rescind is actually an Incidental Main Motion.

[Matt Schafer]

Except under those circumstances, Object to Consideration is not in order. It may only be applied to an Original Main Motion and to petitions and communications that are not from a superior body.

Rescind is actually an Incidental Main Motion.

That's a good point. I'm stumped, then. I don't know a way to force a vote on a motion to Rescind without allowing any debate.

[Steven Britton]

From my way of thinking, your best course is to allow the person their "ten" minutes of fame (exhausting their first speech), and prearrange for someone (as the next recognized speaker) to move the previous question. Just because someone has the priviledge of speaking first in debate, doesn't prohibit the chair an opportunity to have prearrange someone's recognition (a "ringer") for purpose of moving the Previous Question (after the maker of the motion has completed their speech), either.

Ruling the motion to Rescind, Out of order (due to its dilatory, nature in this case), is apt to lead to an appeal and debate; thus, prolonging the meeting even longer.

[Trina]

From my way of thinking, your best course is to allow the the person their "ten" minutes of fame (exhausting their first speech), and prearrange for someone (as the next recognized speaker) to move the previous question. ..

But, geez, ten minutes, meeting after meeting after meeting? Maybe someone can sneak in a motion to limit debate first, before the motion maker gets to make his/her first speech.

[Chris Harrison]

So it is OK for a member to introduce a motion to limit debate prior to the motion maker debating the question but the Previous Question can't be called for? If that is the case would it be in order to limit the speeches to say 2 seconds which would essentially accomplish the assembly's intent?

[Josh Martin]

If at some point the assembly wants to defeat the motion as soon as it was made would it be in order to move to Suspend the Rules (regarding the motion maker getting first crack at debating the question) and order the Previous Question?

No, as Suspend the Rules cannot interrupt a member who has the floor, and the motion maker has preference in recognition.

From my way of thinking, your best course is to allow the person their "ten" minutes of fame (exhausting their first speech), and prearrange for someone (as the next recognized speaker) to move the previous question. Just because someone has the priviledge of speaking first in debate, doesn't prohibit the chair an opportunity to have prearrange someone's recognition (a "ringer") for purpose of moving the Previous Question (after the maker of the motion has completed their speech), either.

This is the best possible course of action available to the assembly after the motion to Rescind is made.

But, geez, ten minutes, meeting after meeting after meeting? Maybe someone can sneak in a motion to limit debate first, before the motion maker gets to make his/her first speech.

Well, the motion maker has preference in recognition, and the motion to Limit Debate cannot interrupt a member who has the floor.

Now, if members anticipate that such a motion will be made at the meeting (which they might, especially after the first two or three meetings of this), an incidental main motion to Limit Debate could be adopted, likely followed by the Previous Question so that this itself would not waste time. Since an IMM is debatable, the motion maker would have preference in recognition and could make the motion for the Previous Question himself. The motion could be worded such that, "Debate on any motion at this meeting to rescind Rule XYZ shall be limited to one speech of two minutes for each member." If the opponents of the rule don't take the hint, the assembly would only have to listen to their arguments for two minutes before proceeding to order the Previous Question.

So it is OK for a member to introduce a motion to limit debate prior to the motion maker debating the question but the Previous Question can't be called for?

No, this is not in order, but members might anticipate the motion and could use the strategy I have outlined above.

If that is the case would it be in order to limit the speeches to say 2 seconds which would essentially accomplish the assembly's intent?

Well, as I noted, the motion maker has preference in recognition, but if members anticipate the motion to Rescind, there is no reason in theory that the motion I described above could not be reworded to say "two seconds" instead of "two minutes," but I suspect the hard feelings caused by such a motion would cause more harm than good. It is better for the harmony of the assembly that the disgruntled minority be given some reasonable opportunity to present its case. Two minutes seems reasonable given the circumstances and does not greatly hinder the assembly's ability to conduct its business. I could perhaps see this cut down further to one minute or even thirty seconds if necessary, but beyond that is pushing it.

[Trina]

...

Well, the motion maker has preference in recognition, and the motion to Limit Debate cannot interrupt a member who has the floor.

Now, if members anticipate that such a motion will be made at the meeting (which they might, especially after the first two or three meetings of this), an incidental main motion to Limit Debate could be adopted, likely followed by the Previous Question so that this itself would not waste time. Since an IMM is debatable, the motion maker would have preference in recognition and could make the motion for the Previous Question himself. The motion could be worded such that, "Debate on any motion at this meeting to rescind Rule XYZ shall be limited to one speech of two minutes for each member." If the opponents of the rule don't take the hint, the assembly would only have to listen to their arguments for two minutes before proceeding to order the Previous Question.

Thanks for clarifying the necessary sequence. I saw that the motion to limit debate is not in order when someone else has the floor; however, it seemed likely that the assembly could somehow use that motion to avoid listening to the same ten-minute presentation at every meeting. Ten minutes is not a trivial amount of time. As you have pointed out, the trick is to limit debate before the motion to rescind the rule is actually made.

Well, as I noted, the motion maker has preference in recognition, but if members anticipate the motion to Rescind, there is no reason in theory that the motion I described above could not be reworded to say "two seconds" instead of "two minutes," but I suspect the hard feelings caused by such a motion would cause more harm than good. It is better for the harmony of the assembly that the disgruntled minority be given some reasonable opportunity to present its case. Two minutes seems reasonable given the circumstances and does not greatly hinder the assembly's ability to conduct its business. I could perhaps see this cut down further to one minute or even thirty seconds if necessary, but beyond that is pushing it.

The other thing to keep in mind, I think, is that the circumstances in the assembly may change over time, and that the opponents of the rule may actually have a persuasive case at some point. Totally depriving them of their opportunity to be heard (as would be done by a "two second" limit to debate) would make it very difficult for the assembly to hear a possibly valid point being made by the opponents.

[Gary c Tesser]

...

This is the best possible course of action available to the assembly after the motion to Rescind is made.

That's not simply unacceptable (in the purest, most comprehensive sense) to you, Josh?

Note that this feckless tactic (pace, S. B.) -- putting up with the ten drivelling minutes (in the characteristic mot juste Trina: "But, geez"), though better than flaccid acquiescence, even depends on the connivance of the chair, who might well be in sympathy with the obstreperous minority (or merely unaware of the various members' positions, perhaps even to the point of not noticing the rule about alternating speakers (citations on request, $.25 ea., contact SteveB@sbritton.cob for group rates); and while the chairman's assignment of the floor is challengeable, doing so would be unappealing*, as Steven Britton points out at the end of his Post #5). And the tactic depends on the membership's having had nothing else ever occurring from month to month in real life that might distract them, which, hard to believe, does sometimes happen to non-parliamentarians.

This reminds me of a post, maybe by the long-lost (in a shattered barque off the Portuguese coast, if I recall correctly -- I drifted for weeks hanging desperately onto my collar to keep my head above water, nibbling for threadbare sustenance on passing algae and plankton and the occasional arm or leg waving saucily from cruise ship windows -- we called them portholes then, before they became gender-neutral) John H., some years ago, where the thread's question had been about a board member who was suing the board, and other board members asked us if there were anything they could do about his sitting there in board meetings, listening in on their strategizing about the lawsuit. (Please nobody bother trifling about getting together at a bar.) John H (if it were he) said this was a case where he'd throw the book as well as the member, out the window.

(Chris H, remember, or before your time? GM?)

To hell with the wimpy objections to the jackhammers outside or handholding the petty Babbit who has to get on an airplane, so gracious me, we better drop everything. Okay? If ever there was a Question of Privilege of the assembly more representative of the class, I've never seen or heard of it.

GEt the matter of privilege raised and ruled favorably. Then go with either the original suspension to allow someone not the mover to speak first, as Chris asked. Or maybe suspend and allow Object to the Consideration to be applied to an incidental main motion. then move it.

... I suspect the hard feelings caused by such a motion would cause more harm than good. It is better for the harmony of the assembly that the disgruntled minority be given some reasonable opportunity to present its case. Two minutes seems reasonable given the circumstances and does not greatly hinder the assembly's ability to conduct its business. I could perhaps see this cut down further to one minute or even thirty seconds if necessary, but beyond that is pushing it.

C'mon Josh! Remember, this is the disgruntled majority which would happily just plain opt for Objection to Consideration if it were available!

_________

*Oh put a sock in it with your interminable insufferable puns, we're trying to get some work done here.

______

N. B. Some of the parenthetical stuff about long-lost John H. is apocryphal, some more possibly made-up.

[J. J.]

You could adopt a special rule that would:

1. Require a 2/3 vote to introduce a motion to rescind this particular rule (and to amend this one).

2. Permit Objection to the Consideration of the Question to be introduced against a motion to Rescind a rule of this type.

[George Mervosh]

I wonder if, at some point, the repeated motion to rescind becomes dilatory.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I wonder if, at some point, the repeated motion to rescind becomes dilatory.

A motion doesn't become dilatory just because the same motion has been rejected at previous sessions.

[George Mervosh]

A motion doesn't become dilatory just because the same motion has been rejected at previous sessions.

I know. Just thinking out loud. Thanks for calming the voices for me though

[alanh49]

in this case could the motion to suspend the rules and order the previous question be raised via a question of privilege?

[J. J.]

in this case could the motion to suspend the rules and order the previous question be raised via a question of privilege?

I would not allow it as a proper question of privilege.

[Josh Martin]

That's not simply unacceptable (in the purest, most comprehensive sense) to you, Josh?

It certainly doesn't seem to be an ideal course of action, but I'm not aware of a better option under RONR after the motion to rescind has been made. One would hope that the scenario Chris H. has described is not one most societies have to deal with.* If it does arise, after the first two or three meetings members are likely to anticipate the motion and could use the IMM strategy I proposed, which is the best option I can think of under RONR. If it continues to be a problem, the society may need to go beyond the rules of RONR and consider special rules of order to address the issue (such as one of those which J. J. proposed).

* In fact, if anyone could provide a real-life example of this issue and how it was handled, that could be highly instructive - and if no one has such an example, perhaps our concerns over this issue are slightly exaggerated.

Note that this feckless tactic (pace, S. B.) -- putting up with the ten drivelling minutes (in the characteristic mot juste Trina: "But, geez"), though better than flaccid acquiescence, even depends on the connivance of the chair, who might well be in sympathy with the obstreperous minority (or merely unaware of the various members' positions, perhaps even to the point of not noticing the rule about alternating speakers (citations on request, $.25 ea., contact SteveB@sbritton.cob for group rates); and while the chairman's assignment of the floor is challengeable, doing so would be unappealing*, as Steven Britton points out at the end of his Post #5). And the tactic depends on the membership's having had nothing else ever occurring from month to month in real life that might distract them, which, hard to believe, does sometimes happen to non-parliamentarians.

These are all valid points, and in such cases it will certainly become even more complicated for the assembly to end debate on the motion. Such considerations are why, although I still contend that Mr. Britton's strategy is the best option after the motion to rescind has been made, it is better still to deal with the situation prior to the making of the motion to rescind. This may be accomplished by means of an IMM to limit debate (to solve it for the meeting) or by a special rule of order (for a more permanent solution).

To hell with the wimpy objections to the jackhammers outside or handholding the petty Babbit who has to get on an airplane, so gracious me, we better drop everything. Okay? If ever there was a Question of Privilege of the assembly more representative of the class, I've never seen or heard of it.

GEt the matter of privilege raised and ruled favorably. Then go with either the original suspension to allow someone not the mover to speak first, as Chris asked. Or maybe suspend and allow Object to the Consideration to be applied to an incidental main motion. then move it.

I see nothing in RONR to suggest that this would be a question of privilege, and certainly not a question of privilege which could interrupt a member who has the floor.

C'mon Josh! Remember, this is the disgruntled majority which would happily just plain opt for Objection to Consideration if it were available!

Notwithstanding, it still seems to me that a motion "Debate on any motion at this meeting to rescind Rule XYZ shall be limited to one speech of two seconds for each member," while technically in order, smacks of bad faith and should be avoided. Two minutes (even at every meeting) does not seem to be an unreasonable amount of time to let the member state his case.

in this case could the motion to suspend the rules and order the previous question be raised via a question of privilege?

No, this does not seem to be in the nature of a question of privilege - and certainly not a question of privilege which justifies interrupting a speaker.

I wonder if, at some point, the repeated motion to rescind becomes dilatory.

No. A dilatory motion is one which is introduced for the purpose of obstructing business. In the example provided by Chris H., it seems clear that the members legitimately desire the rule to be rescinded.

[Steven Britton]

You could adopt a special rule that would:

2. Permit Objection to the Consideration of the Question to be introduced against a motion to Rescind a rule of this type.

Looking at this again, (thank-you, JJ)

Someone could move Object to Consideration of a Question on a motion to Rescind even when they know it is not in order, anyway. The chair could correctly rule the motion not in order, if they choose to do so. Any member of the assembly could appeal from the chair's ruling on Object to Consideration of a Question, perhaps with the knowledge that the chair was correct in ruling the motion "out of order."

Unlike the motion to Rescind, the motion to Object to Consideration of the Question is not debatible, and thus, the appeal would not be debated, either.

My Question is: In an assembly, which way is more beneficial over the long haul? Have the chair use the time explaining the seldom used OTCOTQ, applying it to a question, improperly and with a potential subsequent appeal looming; adopt a specific rule limiting debate overtly aimed at a specific minority, or just allow the maker the full opportunity to present their motion with 10 minutes of debate, and move the Previous Question.

[J. J.]

Someone could move Object to Consideration of a Question on a motion to Rescind even when they know it is not in order, anyway. The chair could correctly rule the motion not in order, if they choose to do so. Any member of the assembly could appeal from the chair's ruling on Object to Consideration of a Question, perhaps with the knowledge that the chair was correct in ruling the motion "out of order."

I think this might create some major problems.

My Question is: In an assembly, which way is more beneficial over the long haul? Have the chair use the time explaining the seldom used OTCOTQ, applying it to a question, improperly and with a potential subsequent appeal looming; adopt a specific rule limiting debate overtly aimed at a specific minority, or just allow the maker the full opportunity to present their motion with 10 minutes of debate, and move the Previous Question.

It would depend.

I could see a situation where an enterprising member could debate for 9 1/2 minutes, and then offer a primary amendment. After speaking on that for 9 1/2, he offers a secondary amendment and speaks on that for 9 1/2 minutes, maybe with a blank. Maybe his comments so enrage other members (even though in order) that they feel a need to speak. Maybe the society feels that even suggesting the rule be rescinded will create such bad public relations, it should not be considered; the rule could be that the facilities of the organization may be used without regard to race or religion. In those situations, it might be worth it.

[Steven P]

I've been reading this thread and we have had a similar situation come up once a year (not monthly) when we are considering our church budget. A dear member makes a motion to remove a line item from the budget used for rewarding the support staff for exemplary commission of their job. He did not like and spoke passionately about removing this each year (after a second). His effort failed each time but he was accorded the respect of the assembly to do this.

While this may appear to some to be an annoyance, I would submit that this falls under the right of the individual to make motions and speak in debate.

[Chris Harrison]

While this may appear to some to be an annoyance, I would submit that this falls under the right of the individual to make motions and speak in debate.

I would agree when this only happens once a year but if it happens every month I would submit that at some point Nimoy's Law needs to kick in. Also, I think the annoyance factor is ratchetted up vastly when the motion is renewed every month rather than just once a year.

[Steven Britton]

JJ

Well, you have a very valid point!

[alanh49]

Looking at this again, (thank-you, JJ)

Someone could move Object to Consideration of a Question on a motion to Rescind even when they know it is not in order, anyway. The chair could correctly rule the motion not in order, if they choose to do so. Any member of the assembly could appeal from the chair's ruling on Object to Consideration of a Question, perhaps with the knowledge that the chair was correct in ruling the motion "out of order."

Unlike the motion to Rescind, the motion to Object to Consideration of the Question is not debatible, and thus, the appeal would not be debated, either.

But wouldn't the appeal be out of order based on RONR (11^th ed.), P.256 ll.34-36

[Steven Britton]

But wouldn't the appeal be out of order based on RONR (11^th ed.), P.256 ll.34-36

It certainly wouldn't be incorrect to rule the appeal out of order.

[Josh Martin]

While this may appear to some to be an annoyance, I would submit that this falls under the right of the individual to make motions and speak in debate.

While I agree completely with this point, I know of assemblies which meet more often (some as often as weekly), and in such a case the annoyance would be magnified considerably. Your point is still valid, however, and this is exactly the reason that, while I can see that in some cases there may be a need to cut down on the time permitted for the member to present his motion, eliminating his time altogether should be avoided.