Weldon Merritt

Good question. RONR 30:3(6) says that motion relating to voting and the polls are amendable. But 30:4 suggests that the issue of what method to use should not be treated as amendments. And truthfully, I think treating them as filling blanks makes the most sense.

I said I wasn't sure it would be; not that it definitely would not be. I couldn't quite put my finger on why it might not be, but Mr. Martin hit it: However, I now agree with his reasoning here: And I like his suggestions for how to handle the situation.

I'm not so sure that would be in order. But even if so, that certainly wouldn't help if the initial motion is adopted. It seems to me that the member who wants a different metiod should not have to wait and risk having the first motion adopted.

As we know, adoption of the Previous Question closes debate on and amendment of the motions to which it applies and prevents the making of additional subsidiary motions except Lay on the Table. (RONR 26:2.) (For this thread, I am ignoring the unlikely possibility of a vote to adopt Limit of Extend Debate, if it is included in the series to which PQ apples. Those interested in that issue may find this thread interesting.) However, PQ does not preclude the making of subsequent privileged or incidental motions (id.), but PQ applies to any such subsequent motions. (RONR 16:19.) So on its face, that provision would preclude amending any subsequent incidental motion that would otherwise be amendable. Now suppose that PQ has been ordered on the Main Motion (with or without other higher-ranking motions included in the order). Then before the vote is taken on the MM, someone moves to take the vote by a specified method (say, a counted vote), but another member wants the vote to be taken by another method (say, by ballot). Ordinarily, the motion to take the vote by a specified method would be amendable (RONR 30:3(6)), so the member who wanted to take the vote by ballot could move to substitute that method. But PQ says that subsequent incidental motions are subject to the order, so the motion to take the vote by a counted vote seemingly would not be amendable. So, is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?

Well, I guess we'll need to wait for his clarification. But since LEL limits debate, but not amendments, it seems to me that even under his interpretation, PQ would still preclude further amendments.

Not I. My only question is whether they are subsequently debatable. It still seems to me that they should not be, based on the current wording of RONR. I understand Mr.Honemann's reasoning, but I am not persuaded.

I that indeed is the case, I think it needs to be more explicit in RONR. To me, it seems that when RONR says that PQ stops all debate on all motions to which it applies, it means exactly that. I just don't see anything that, on its face, indicates to me that if LED is then adopted, debate can then continue on the same motions on which PQ was just ordered. I don't have an issue with that being the case, except that it just isn't clear to me that it is the case.

I agree with that, if there are any such motions. But in the scenario I posited, both LED and PQ applied to the entire series down to and including the MM. So in that scenario, how would there be any motions which are included in the PQ order but not the LED order? Certainly, if LED is moved on the entire series and then PQ is ordered on part of the series, but not including the MM, then LED (if adopted) would still apply to the MM. But that was mot the scenario I posited.

The former. The purpose of a roll call generally is to verify who is present. So why would you think you would call only the names of those whom you already know are present? If you are talking about a roll call vote, the purpose is to record how each member voted. In that instance, it might make sense to only call the names of members who are present. But even there, But even then, nothing in RONR suggests that only those names should be called. (Unless I have missed something.)

So PQ is then ignored for the rest of the series? Even though PQ is higher ranking that LEM and also requires a two-thirds vote? If so. I think that needs to be made much more explicit in the 13th edition. And if PQ isn't ignored, then I am back to asking how adopting LEM could possibly make any difference after debate has been closed on the series to which LEM would otherwise apply/.

Where I'm having trouble is in how and adopted LED motion can ever supersede and adopted PQ order, if both apply to the same series ending with the MM. Are you saying that in that event, if LEM is adopted, the motions to which it applies then become debatable under the LEM provision, notwithstanding that PQ has been ordered on the entire series?

I agree. It seem like Mr. Savory is under the impression that PQ would be voted on separately for each motion in the series, but that's not correct. If PQ is moved on an entire series, only one vote is taken on PQ. If adopted, it halts debate and amendments on the entire series.

Maybe something for the 13th edition to clarify?

Yes, and both have other excellent in-person and virtual training opportunities. For NAP, there are the conventions, training conference , and district conferences. And for AIP there are the annual meetings and the East and West Coast Practicums, as well as various presiding practicums.

AIP does have local chapters. Just not as many as NAP. And since they did away with regions several years agio, there is no organizational level between the local chapter and the national organization.

So are you saying that in that scenario, if motion to limit debate is adopted, it supersedes the order for the Previous Question, so that the amendment and the main motion could then be debated (subject to the one speech/five minutes limit) notwithstanding the prior adoption of PQ? I see nothin in either Sec, 15 or Sec. 16 that explicitly says that. And the fact that Limit or Extends Limits of Debate requires a two-thirds vote doesn't seem persuasive to me, because PQ also requires a two -thirds vote. RONR 16:11-12 includes an extensive discussion of when PQ is exhausted or interrupted, and I don't see adoption of a pending motion to limit or extend debate among those conditions.

Well, yes,. that's true. I guess I overlooked that point. But even if it voted on and adopted after PQ has been ordered, I don't see how it can ever be effective. PQ halts debate on and amendment of all motions to which it applies. So I still don't see how voting on Limit or Extend in the my scenario could possible make any difference, because either way, the rest of the series would still have to be voted on without further debate. I am willing to admit that there could be some scenario that I have overlooked, so that's why I asked for an example of such a scenario.

Yes, I realize that's what RONR says. And I agree that a literal reading would mean that you have to vote on Limit or Extend Limits of Debate. What I don't get is how and order limiting or extending debate that includes a limitation or extension on the Main Motion could ever still be relevant after the Previous Question has been ordered on a series that includes both Limit or Extend and the Main Motion. RONR 16:3(1) specifies that PQ "supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order limiting or extending debate with respect to the emotions to which it applies." To me, that seems to strengthen the argument that it would be pointless to vote on Limit or Extend if PQW is ordered on s series that incudes both Limit or Extend and the MM.And if it would be pointless, why do it? If I'm still missing something, maybe an example of when it would not be pointless would help.

I have a question about the Previous Question that doesn’t seem to be directly answered by RONR. Assume a Main Motion and a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, are pending. Then an order for the Previous Question on all pending motions is adopted. Although RONR does not say so, it seems to me that it would make no sense to vote on Limit or Extend, and that vote should be omitted. Why? Because even if Limit or Extend is adopted, once the MM is either adopted or defeated, either way, there will be noting left for Limit or Extend to apply to. The same logic would apply if one or more other subsidiary motions are included in the series between Limit or Extend and the MM. Assume that Postpone Definitely, Commit, and Postpone Indefinitely are all pending in the series. (Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible; so bear with me). If Postpone Definitely is defeated, you keep going. If it is adopted, the MM and adhering motions are postponed to the specified time. But when the motions come back at the specified time, Limit or Extend would be exhausted (RONR 14:19), and its adoption would have been pointless. If PD is not adopted, then Commit would be voted on next. If defeated, votes on the series will continue. And if Commit is adopted, the MM would go to the committee, and when the committee reports, Limit or Extend would be exhausted. (RONR 13:21) So again, the vote on Limit or Extend would have been pointless. If Commit is defeated, the assembly next would vote on Postpone Indefinitely. If that motion is defeated, the assembly then votes on the MM. And if PI is adopted, the MM goes away and there is nothing left for Limit or Extend to apply to. So it seems to me that any time the Previous Question is ordered on a series that includes both Limit or Extend Limit of Debate and the Main Motion, voting on Limit or Extend would be pointless and should be skipped. Do you agree or am I missing something?

RONR 35:13 seems to refer only to expunging an entre motion. and does not explicitly address expunging only a portion of a motion. Nevertheless, I think it should be permissible. If anyone disagrees, I would be very interested in the logic (other than "because the rule says so.")

More specifically, RONR provides that the chair may vote whenever their vote would make a difference in the outcome. (This applies to whoever in in the chair at the time, who might or might not be the president on any particular occasion.)

Yes, and that would be a good argument to use in debate against the motion. But it could be that the organization wants to deliberately violate the law, inviting enforcement action to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

I agree. There seems to be a widespread assumption that having an odd number of members will preclude a tie. But that's not necessarily so. Even with an odd number of members, a tie could result if a member is absent or abstains.

Mr. Brown beat me to the punch, so I will simply agree with his response. I will just add that if your bylaws do not define a quorum, by default under RONR it is a majority of thr member. But again that's living, breathing members; it does not include vacant positions.

Thank you for that information. I was not aware of that usage, so I'll try to keep it in mind. But I agree that it is best, whenever possible, to ask the person's preference and use that.