Suspend the Rules and order the Previous Question

[Abd]

Isn't a Motion to Rescind a main motion, not an incidental one? If so, Objection to the Consideration of the Question is not improper at all, and would be highly efficient, while remaining totally fair, since it takes a two-thirds vote to sustain the objection. OTCQ is not in order for incidental motions, since, with an incidental motion, the Question is already under discussion.

A Motion to Rescind seeks to bring up an old, apparently resolved question. It's in order at any meeting, if not previously rejected at that meeting, but it is requesting that the original Question be brought up again, in a new discussion, it is not modifying or relating to an ongoing one, as is an incidental motion, hence OTCQ would be not only in order, but a matter of the efficient protection of the rights of a supermajority, against repetitive requests that will clearly be a waste of time.

Is this correct? Please advise as to any errors.

[Trina]

Isn't a Motion to Rescind a main motion, not an incidental one?

...

The distinction made earlier in the thread was that it was an incidental main motion rather than an original main motion. I don't believe anyone said that Rescind was an incidental motion.

See RONR (10th ed., since that's the book you said you have in hand) p. 258 ll. 24-25, p. 259 l. 6.

[Chris Harrison]

<snip>

No. In the 10th Edition I would refer you to tinted pages 26-27 (located at the back of the book a few pages after p. 643) #77 (same pages in the 11th Edition) that Rescind is an Incidental Main Motion. RONR/10 p. 259 ll. 8-9 and RONR/11 p. 268 ll. 3-4 both say that Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied to an Incidental Main Motion.

[Abd]

No. In the 10th Edition I would refer you to tinted pages 26-27 (located at the back of the book a few pages after p. 643) #77 (same pages in the 11th Edition) that Rescind is an Incidental Main Motion. RONR/10 p. 259 ll. 8-9 and RONR/11 p. 268 ll. 3-4 both say that Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied to an Incidental Main Motion.

Thanks, Chris. Yes, a Motion to Rescind is clearly an Incidental Main Motion, the correct terminology. It is "incidental" because it does relate to a pre-existing question, but "main" because it is its own entity, it's new for the session, if I'm correct.

Thanks especially for the specific citations to the 10th edition, it's a big help for me at this point. Yes, the citation given explicitly excludes the Objection for an "incidental main motion."

Since this doesn't make sense to me, I either am misunderstanding some underlying principle, or the text represents an error of some kind, such as an undocumented exception. Normally, I understand the purpose of the rules, they make very much sense. So there is something to learn here.

I'm not getting it. The Objection to Consideration is used to prevent disruptive consideration of an issue. A matter may have previously been debated. Suppose that in that debate, it was found to be disruptive, to harm the organization.

Bringing the same subject up again, without the consent of at least one-third of the members, would be clearly harmful.

The rules for Objection still protect the minority position, for it takes a 2/3 majority to sustain an Objection, and a sustained objection can even be Reconsidered at the same session.

Here, Objection was actually recommended by at least one partiicpant, with some expectation that, in the situation described, if this was challenged as violating the rules, the chair or assembly would nevertheless decide to allow the Objection and sustain it. Since that takes fewer votes than an actual Objection, this is less protective of the minority. What's the goal here?

Is there some other procedure for summary handling of a repetitive request, that still protects the minority position, but that handles the matter without debate, that does not allow the mover to open debate in the face of an objection by a two-thirds majority?

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks, Chris. Yes, a Motion to Rescind is clearly an Incidental Main Motion, the correct terminology. It is "incidental" because it does relate to a pre-existing question, but "main" because it is its own entity, it's new for the session, if I'm correct.

Thanks especially for the specific citations to the 10th edition, it's a big help for me at this point. Yes, the citation given explicitly excludes the Objection for an "incidental main motion."

Since this doesn't make sense to me, I either am misunderstanding some underlying principle, or the text represents an error of some kind, such as an undocumented exception. Normally, I understand the purpose of the rules, they make very much sense. So there is something to learn here.

I'm not getting it. The Objection to Consideration is used to prevent disruptive consideration of an issue. A matter may have previously been debated. Suppose that in that debate, it was found to be disruptive, to harm the organization.

Bringing the same subject up again, without the consent of at least one-third of the members, would be clearly harmful.

The rules for Objection still protect the minority position, for it takes a 2/3 majority to sustain an Objection, and a sustained objection can even be Reconsidered at the same session.

Here, Objection was actually recommended by at least one partiicpant, with some expectation that, in the situation described, if this was challenged as violating the rules, the chair or assembly would nevertheless decide to allow the Objection and sustain it. Since that takes fewer votes than an actual Objection, this is less protective of the minority. What's the goal here?

Is there some other procedure for summary handling of a repetitive request, that still protects the minority position, but that handles the matter without debate, that does not allow the mover to open debate in the face of an objection by a two-thirds majority?

Please post your questions in the General Discussion Forum.

[Abd]

Please post your questions in the General Discussion Forum.

Thanks. I have done so.