livingfractal

I’m not sure I would call us an ordinary society as we are the legislative branch of the undergraduate student government.

Dilatory probably is the wrong phrase to use. The point of order would be raised raised prior to the vote on the previous question. Our standing rules specify the creation of list of speakers for debate. They make up about 20 out of a body of 50, so they are in a bit flux when it comes to majority status. Im really just trying to ask a more general question, because they’ve stated “no motion is in order because we are in voting procedures” even when voting has not began. I can’t make the point of order, and by the time the presiding officer allows it is too late to raise a point of order on the issue. It goes something like this: Someone yells, “call the question” Someone else tells “second” speaker: There is a call to question, it is seconded and not debatable. Someone else: I seek recognition of the Speaker Speaker: we are in voting procedures and all motions are out of order During elections we spent an hour in “voting procedures”, because the ethics chair (they preside during elections at the first meeting of the session) was waiting for the academic advisor to tell them if a member who arrived late could vote during the run off election after sitting out the initial election. They wouldn’t even entertain listening to members make any motion despite all the previous ballots being tallied and the runoff ballots not having been collected. They just kept saying “no motions or leaving while we are in voting procedures.” I couldn’t even begin to say we should set this on the table and move onto other elections we know the member can vote on instead of locking ourselves in a room for an hour twiddling our thumbs. Mind you, I went through a lot of effort amending our standing laws just prior to this to get rid of some ridiculous clause calling for tabling a motion to move business to an unfavorable calendar exactly like a motion to postpone indefinitely. The wording for both motions was literally the same. And you really don’t want to hear about the “friendly amendments” section. We also can’t amend anything on the consent calendar, but there is no way specified to move something from the consent calendar to the general agenda without requesting so prior to the meeting. I spent a solid five minutes explaining how we had to suspend that rule, and then they were flabbergasted I moved to refer it back to Committee when the author decided to adopt her own amendment as a friendly amendment so my caucus and I could give the written notice to move it to the unfavorable calendar to be done with what is the most convoluted proceedings I’d ever seen. I even like the bill in spirit, but they wanted to rush a bill through that had the potential to remove all funding from entire branches of our student government a week before final exams, and only a week into our legislative session. It is honestly the weirdest thing I’ve ever seen, and I go to political party conventions.

The body was using Mason’s Manual. For some reason the authority is listed in our standing rules adopted at the beginning of the legislative session, and this session we switched to Robert’s. Senators have unlimited speaking privileges unless 2/3 vote otherwise. Just as an example for how weird the rules are, there is a couple references to the reading of bills which seem to imply multiple readings, but nothing requiring bills be read multiple times. There is also an entire section devoted to “friendly amendments”, and how the sponsor may declare and adopt them.

An example is a motion to table, or a point of order that member didn’t receive recognition to move the previous question during debate when we have a list of members recognized to speak. As for a majority being dilatory. We have constitutional duties, and certain personal interest groups have coordinated campaigns for election under false pretense to obstruct our duties. The only solution is, of course, increasing involvement and recourse through the judicial branch for egregious behavior assuming they don’t use our power of appointment to stack the judiciary. But like you said, that’s politics and not parliamentary procedure But yeah, a lot of my response was just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Assuming no bylaws specifying an outcome, what is the affect of being declared out of order during debate for not being germane when the member otherwise has the right to unlimited speaking time, and would a prior motion limiting debate to specific total time impact the outcome?

Thank you, I’ve had a slight issue were everything at a legislative meeting during voting procedures and tabulation of votes was declared out of order even when voting had not began. It’s exasperated by the speaker allowing people to call the previous question or motion to adjourn without being recognized, as well as not providing a pregnant pause for higher order motions. It seems to be a tactic used by certain members to obstruct business they oppose. Coupled with the apathy of some members towards careful consideration of our legislative duties, and just wanting to “get out of here” it is bloody obnoxious. I kind of knew this would be a cultural issue in a Undergraduate Student Senate, but it’s proving difficult to draw the line between dilatory motions, and genuine will of the majority. The unfortunate fact being when the majority is dilatory or lax in duties, as is off to happen when involvement is low and a high portion of members are just resume building.

Are there any motions which are in order during a vote, during tabulation of ballots, or after the call to question has been passed but prior to a roll call vote has begun? for example, is a point of order pertaining to an ongoing vote in order during a roll call vote?

There is generally a huge amount of confusion about what a resolution is.

Can special rules (rules of the day) include a clause forbidding amendments to main motions (either specific “classes” of main motions, like adopting resolutions, or in general)?

The bylaws of the organization state that the Executive Committee is the highest governing body, and that a Biannual Convention is to be held with elected delegates. Both bodies are able to adopt Resolutions submitted by its constituent groups which receive favorable recommendation by a Resolutions and Platform Committee. Resolutions passed over the last four years, at all levels of the organization (local, regional, and the whole), are to be considered when creating a platform per the bylaws. At the beginning of the year the Executive Committee adopted a resolution stating support for free higher education. Minutes for this meeting are not readily available for public review, so I can not ascertain if the resolution was passed through the R&P Committee, or introduced with a 2/3s vote at the meeting. I do know that similar resolutions have been passed at several local and regional conventions in past years, but the minutes of the previous Biannual Convention are also missing from the records. At the biannual convention the R&P Committee recommended a resolution to support higher education being $500. After a motion to consider the resolution on its own was introduced and seconded a request for information was made to how the resolution would affect the resolution from the Executive Committee. The Vice Chair, who is also the chair of the R&P Committee, stated that the resolution up for consideration would supersede the resolution from the Executive Committee. The Convention voted to not pull the resolution, and it was passed with a 2/3s vote on the approval of the committees report. Was the statement from the Vice Chair appropriate and accurate? Before the R&P Committee made its report a motion to set aside the orders of the day (the time set to adjourn) was introduced, and then promptly ignored by the chair (the minutes imply it was a request for information "if time could be extended" rather than a poorly worded motion). After the R&P Committees reports were gone through, and some of the resolutions were pulled, the time to adjourn was approaching and a member introduced a motion "to move all the pulled resolutions to the Executive Committee", and then another member moved that all the resolutions which had been submitted to be introduced following a 2/3s vote should also "be moved to the Executive Committee". Several members pointed out that this would remove consideration of the motions from the body as it would be dissolved when the Convention adjourned, and instead asked that the time set to be adjourned be removed as orders of the day. The Chair stated that he and the rest of the Officers had a Council meeting to attend, so the time to adjourn for the Convention could not be removed (the rules allow any delegate to preside), and would not allow an appeal of that decision. The motion to move all resolutions was passed with a 2/3s vote. The Vice Chair moved the time to adjourn be extended by 10 minutes for announcements, which passed unanimously. The Chair then proceeded to call any other motions to extend the time to adjourn out of order, as well as any appeals from the body. Were the actions of the chair appropriate? Obviously, if the body decided to not set aside the rules of the day, then that would be a different matter. Also, can a Convention "send motions to consider resolutions" to another body, or is that contrary to fundamental principles (a majority of the Convention delegates are a member of that body)? Honestly, besides an election for 3 representatives to another independent organization every four years it seems like the Convention is a complete honeypot.