parkourninja

58 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

In this case, I thought the objective was to decide *all* the pending questions without a direct vote on *any* of them.

By moving for adoption of the pending motion as though all pending motions were lost, it would seem to me as though you are essentially bringing up the question of the main motion before handling any subsidiary motions. In other words, you could invert the motion ladder of precedence.

On 7/14/2017 at 6:38 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't see why not. ?

So then it would seem to me that you can, through the motion to suspend the rules, bring up and vote on the question that is not immediately pending (effectively skipping the immediately pending motion). This seems like a fundamental component of RONR.

On 7/11/2017 at 10:55 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

What do you mean by "then"?

Not then as in sequentially, then meaning, by an extension of logic, would it be in order to move to suspend the rules and agree to the adoption of the pending main motion as it would read if all pending amendments were lost?

On 7/6/2017 at 3:44 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

How about: I move to suspend the rules and agree to the adoption of the pending main motion as it would read if all pending amendments were adopted.

Could you then also move to suspend the rules and agree to the adoption of the pending main motion as it would read if all pending amendments were lost?

On 7/1/2017 at 2:06 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The answer to the question initially asked remains "yes, it's in order." 

So to clarify, as a general rule, it is in order to make a motion to suspend the rules which would effectively adopt several motions at once (so long as they are pertaining to the main motion at hand). And my original scenario "I move to suspend the rules and adopt all pending motions in succession with a single vote" would be 100% legal and a 2/3 vote in the affirmative for suspending the rules would therefore adopt all pending motions in succession as well.

It seems there was some dissent and confusion so I want to make sure I am understanding this properly.

Should instances where a member's action is ruled out of order but a point of order was not raised be included in the minutes?

On 6/25/2017 at 7:12 AM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

 

See RONR for how to adopt a motion without debate, using Suspend the Rules and Unanimous Consent.

 

Could you give me a page number.

On 6/26/2017 at 10:00 AM, Josh Martin said:

I do not think such a suspension is in order. It appears to me to violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question is immediately pending at a time. The problems which Mr. Katz illustrated show why this rule exists.

See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 ("Finally, if it is desired to wrap things up very quickly with a single vote, a motion may be made “to suspend the rules and agree that the pending motion relating to ... be postponed indefinitely."), in that instance, it appears multiple questions are pending. The vote of the motion effectively adopts both a previous question and the motion to postpone indefinitely. Typically, one would need to adopt previous question and then postpone indefinitely as separate votes, but the suspend the rules condenses it into one vote. That instance appears to support the scenario I suggested.

Putting the competition advice aspect aside, I am genuinely curious about the validity of this motion.

Should the minutes include instances where a member was ruled out of order such as if a member raised a point of information and that point was ruled out of order?

18 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

And, so,

Q. How is this different from just moving the Previous Question on all pending questions?

Q. Why is P.Q. not sufficient?

 

Each question must be restated which could take an extra minute to 30 seconds (which is actually significant time for us). The motions are all adopted with 1 single vote in succession.

I understand in principle what everyone has suggested. What am I saying applies if there is an extreme time constraint and it is too long to take a vote on each subsidiary motion. This is part of a parliamentary competition where we only have 15 minutes. Simply restating each motion if 3 motions are pending (i.e. main, primary amendment, secondary amendment) takes too long and if it is parliamentary-wise acceptable to make that suspend the rules, it would be much better for our team.

If a member moves to take from the table and the motion is adopted, are they entitled to preference in recognition in order to debate the motion first?

3 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

You're referring to this passage, it seems - "If an actual minority in a representative meeting makes improper use of this motion by moving to reconsider and enter on the minutes a vote which requires action before the next regular meeting, the remedy is to fix the time for an adjourned meeting (9, 22) on another suitable day when the reconsideration can be called up and disposed of. In such a case, the mere making of a motion to set an adjourned meeting would likely cause withdrawal of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, since its object would be defeated. "  RONR (11th ed.), p. 335

Given your posting I'd suggest saying all of that prior to making the motion is improper.  Since it's likely the motion will be made when no other business is pending you should just save it for debate, assuming that the motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes is not withdrawn..

Good point. However, as a general rule, would the member be able to make such a statement as I have described where the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn privileged and there was other business pending.

4 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If your parliamentary authority is RONR, then you may gain the floor for one purpose and then do something else, such as speaking in debate and then making a motion.  

But the motion to reconsider and enter in the minutes is not debatable and assume no other business was pending, therefore debate in general would not be allowed.

Is it acceptable to "move to suspend the rules and adopt all pending motions in succession with a single vote"?

On 6/3/2017 at 11:31 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

At that point, the motion to Suspend the Rules could validly be adopted. I can't say it would be "the best" motion, but see http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_20 for a somewhat similar scenario and possible wording.

I checked that scenario but I don't see what would be a better motion. In that case, the motion would need to be taken from the table before postponing indefinitely which would be an extra motion.

17 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

The motion to Suspend the Rules would still not be in order at that point, as the chair first has to state the question on the motion to Take from the Table.

After the motion is stated by the chair but before a vote is taken, would it then be valid and the best motion to achieve the desired effect?

10 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

A motion to Suspend the Rules is out of order when another has the floor.

I should have phrased the scenario better. The member moves to take from the table ..., finishes motion and it is seconded. Then Member 2 interjects.

24 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Where does it say that?

I take that statement back. I was looking at page 368 line 4 but that only applies to business that was already pending. If a general order was set without a specified time and the assembly wanted to consider new business before handling the general order, would a member need to suspend the rules to do so?

14 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

How about voting against a motion to kill it?

I don't understand the question. If the objective is to kill a motion that is currently on the table without taking the motion from the table, what is the best way to do this. I gave a sample scenario that I think would be the best way.

Can I motion to fix the time to which to adjourn be made after a previous question is ordered but before it is exhausted?

If a motion was laid on the table and a member wanted to get ride of the motion without bring it back. Could they move to "suspend the rules and postpone the motion laid on the table to... indefinitely" (or some other wording)? Could this be done after a member moved to take a motion from the table such as in the following scenario?:

Member 1 (after recognition): I move to take from the table the motion to...

Member 2: Mr. President

President: For what purpose does the member rise?

Member 2: To suspend the rules in conjunction with the matter at hand.

President: The chair recognizes Member 2.

Member 2: I move to suspend the rules and postpone the motion currently on the table to... indefinitely.

Is there another motion that would better achieve this?

If a motion is postponed as a general order to the next regular meeting without a date specified, my understanding is that it would come before the assembly under unfinished business. Now, RONR specifies that new business should be considered before a general order that is set for a certain time. Does that mean if a member wanted to make a main motion and bring new business before the assembly, they could do that and override a general order set without a date even though unfinished business comes before new business? How would that be worded if possible.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you studying parliamentary procedure in or through a program or course that is not solely based on RONR? Or perhaps for credentialing through some organization other than NAP or AIP?

Solely based on RONR, separate from NAP. There's also a performance section.

The test I'm referring to here is NAP's 300 question test.

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, the secretary should note the making of the motion in the minutes regardless of whether the chair directs the secretary to do so.

Right, but in the case of the motion to reconsider when made at a time when it cannot be called up, the form given says for the president to say "The Secretary will make a note of it". I assumed the same would then apply to the motion to reconsider and enter in the minutes.