Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Reading a paper which is before the assembly for actioni


Guest Reginald L. Jensen

Recommended Posts

Guest Reginald L. Jensen

P. 290, second para, secon sentence:

When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is the right of every member that it be read once, and, if ther is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it.

A motion was moved to endorse and send to the state legislature the vote endorsing a bill that was being considered by the legislature. I took the position that the bill should have been read in its entirety before any other motion was needed and before the members voted on the motion. The club ruled that my interpretation was incorrect and that I could be prevented from reading the bill. I was prevented from proceeding without making a motion to amend and that I could not proceed without a second.

Was I right or was the parlimentarian right?

Reginald L. Jensen

regj@pacbell.net

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A motion was moved to endorse and send to the state legislature the vote endorsing a bill that was being considered by the legislature.

I took the position that the bill should have been read in its entirety before any other motion was needed and before the members voted on the motion.

The club ruled that my interpretation was incorrect and that I could be prevented from reading the bill.

I was prevented from proceeding without making a motion to amend and that I could not proceed without a second.

Was I right or was the parliamentarian right?

Unclear.

1.) If the motion included the actual legal language of the bill, then YES, you read it.

A main motion must have its entire text read aloud. (See RONR how to circumvent the reading of the text of a main motion.)

2.) If the motion did not include the actual legal language of the bill, but only endorsed it by name, or by number, or by sponsor, then NO, you don't read it.

It isn't text from the main motion.

It would be considered "debate," i.e., text which may be used to support (or oppose) passage of your main motion, without being part of the main motion.

***

Analogy:

The legal language is like a chemical "catalyst" -- the text of the bill is something which speeds up a reaction, but does not partake in the reaction.

***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P. 290, second para, secon sentence:

When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is the right of every member that it be read once, and, if ther is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it.

A motion was moved to endorse and send to the state legislature the vote endorsing a bill that was being considered by the legislature. I took the position that the bill should have been read in its entirety before any other motion was needed and before the members voted on the motion. The club ruled that my interpretation was incorrect and that I could be prevented from reading the bill. I was prevented from proceeding without making a motion to amend and that I could not proceed without a second.

Was I right or was the parlimentarian right?

Reginald L. Jensen

regj@pacbell.net

If any member demanded it, the bill had to be read under the rule in RONR (10th ed.), p. 287, ll. 10-14, since the substance of the bill was integral to what the main motion proposed. To refuse to permit the bill to be read is tantamount to violating the individual members' right to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If any member demanded it,

the bill had to be read under the rule in RONR (10th ed.), p. 287, ll. 10-14,

since the substance of the bill was integral to what the main motion proposed.

You are assuming that the main motion of this organization contains 100% of all the thousands of words in the legislative bill.

We don't know if that is the case.

If the organization were a Chamber of Commerce, for example, then the format would be be for the Chamber of Commerce to support/oppose a bill by bill number and by sponsor, without re-quoting any text of the legislative bill but for the one or two excerpts which the main motion includes.

The Chamber of Commerce, inside its own meeting, would not read aloud, by Robert's Rules, the text of the Senate bill or Assembly bill itself, since the legislative bill itself is not which is pending, and is not what is to be adopted by the Chamber of Commerce.

To refuse to permit the bill to be read is tantamount to violating the individual members' right to vote.

Now, that is a stretch which would exceed even S.F. Giant superstar Willie McCovey's reach. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are assuming that the main motion of this organization contains 100% of all the thousands of words in the legislative bill.

We don't know if that is the case.

If the organization were a Chamber of Commerce, for example, then the format would be be for the Chamber of Commerce to support/oppose a bill by bill number and by sponsor, without re-quoting any text of the legislative bill but for the one or two excerpts which the main motion includes.

The Chamber of Commerce, inside its own meeting, would not read aloud, by Robert's Rules, the text of the Senate bill or Assembly bill itself, since the legislative bill itself is not which is pending, and is not what is to be adopted by the Chamber of Commerce.

Now, that is a stretch which would exceed even S.F. Giant superstar Willie McCovey's reach. cool.gif

No, I not.

I meant exactly what I said. If the main motion proposes that the society endorse the adoption of Senate Bill 1111, the reading of Senate Bill 1111 is required on the demand of a single member, since the substance of Senate Bill 1111 is integral to what the main motion proposes. It is unreasonable to require a member to vote on a motion proposing to endorse the adoption of Senate Bill 1111 without his knowing what Senate Bill 1111 says. In fact, refusing to read Senate Bill 1111 is tantamount to violating the individual member's right to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I not.

I meant exactly what I said. If the main motion proposes that the society endorse the adoption of Senate Bill 1111, the reading of Senate Bill 1111 is required on the demand of a single member, since the substance of Senate Bill 1111 is integral to what the main motion proposes. It is unreasonable to require a member to vote on a motion proposing to endorse the adoption of Senate Bill 1111 without his knowing what Senate Bill 1111 says. In fact, refusing to read Senate Bill 1111 is tantamount to violating the individual member's right to vote.

Wrong.

Test it out:

• "I move that this church go on record as endorsing the New American Bible version published March 9, 2001, as the official bible of this church."

Q. Shall the entire NAB bible be read aloud, by rule?

• "I move that this organization condemn WikiLeaks for its illegal release of the confidential and top secret e-mails of the government."

Q. Shall the entire text of the Wikileaks document(s) be read aloud, by rule?

• "I move that Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged" be whole heartedly endorsed by this organization."

Q. Shall the entire novel of "Atlas Shrugged" be read aloud, by rule?

• "I move that the 10th edition of RONR be adopted by this organization as its parliamentary authority."

Q. Shall all 703 pages of RONR be read aloud, by rule?

The map is not the territory.

"Endorsement of X" is not the same thing as "X".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...