Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

putting a cap on the number of motions a member can make

gregory

By gregory
in General Discussion

Recommended Posts

gregory

gregory

Posted
Posted

A member of our Union made a motion today to limit the number of motions

any member can make in one meeting to two and of course our bylaws state

that RONR will govern our membership meetings.

My understanding is any motion that is adopted by the membership would

then over rule RONR, is that correct?

But on the other hand, if our bylaws state that RONR governs our meetings,

would that bylaw then over rule the pending motion just made, making it out of order?

If RONR does speak to limiting members to x motions or bylaw amendments

per meeting, what page might that be on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rob Elsman

Rob Elsman

Posted
Posted

A special rule of order may be adopted to permit this. See RONR, pp. 15-17.

If adopted, it would supercede RONR.

A main motion to adopt such an ordinary, special rule of order is out of order under the rule of RONR (10th ed.), p. 106, ll. 20-25, in my opinion, since it conflicts with the basic right of individual members to make motions, incorporated into the bylaws by reference in those societies that have adopted RONR as the parliamentary authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gary Novosielski

Gary Novosielski

Posted
Posted

So Geroge, are you saying that in order for the motion to be voted on,

the maker of the motion would first have to make a special rule of

order (motion) first? Not sure I follow.

No, the point is that an ordinary main motion would not be allowed to limit the rights of a member to make as many motions as he wanted to.

In order to limit the number to two, this motion to do so would have to be passed as a Special Rule of Order, which have more stringent voting thresholds than ordinary motions.

Special Rules of Order, once adopted, supersede the rules in RONR. But if its ever necessary in the future to allow someone to make more than two motions this can be done temporarily by a motion to Suspend the Rule, which takes a 2/3 vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shmuel Gerber

Shmuel Gerber

Posted
Posted

A special rule of order may be adopted to permit this. See RONR, pp. 15-17.

If adopted, it would supercede RONR.

I agree. Such a rule, which is probably very ill advised and should be clarified so as to apply only to original main motions, does not "deny any particular member the member the right to ... make motions" as outlawed on page 255. It applies equally to all members, just as RONR's limit of two speeches per member per day on each debatable motion does not deny any particular member the right to debate.

Think of it as a type of super-duper seconding requirement, in that a member who has reached the limit must find not just a seconder for his motion, but a maker as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rob Elsman

Rob Elsman

Posted
Posted

I agree. Such a rule, which is probably very ill advised and should be clarified so as to apply only to original main motions, does not "deny any particular member the member the right to ... make motions" as outlawed on page 255. It applies equally to all members, just as RONR's limit of two speeches per member per day on each debatable motion does not deny any particular member the right to debate.

Think of it as a type of super-duper seconding requirement, in that a member who has reached the limit must find not just a seconder for his motion, but a maker as well.

Well, since when does a Point of Order (which is formally defined as an incidental motion) require a second, super-duper or otherwise? I thought it was the right of each individual member to insist on the enforcement of the rules, RONR (10th ed.), p. 242, ll. 33-35. It seems to me that such an ordinary, special rule of order (when applied to any motion, as the original poster suggests) interferes with this right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shmuel Gerber

Shmuel Gerber

Posted
Posted

Well, since when does a Point of Order (which is formally defined as an incidental motion) require a second, super-duper or otherwise? I thought it was the right of each individual member to insist on the enforcement of the rules, RONR (10th ed.), p. 242, ll. 33-35. It seems to me that such an ordinary, special rule of order (when applied to any motion, as the original poster suggests) interferes with this right.

I'm sure the union that Gregory is referring to has no intention of limiting points of order or appeals by the adoption of this rule, as that would certainly tend to lead to situations in which members' rights could be violated.

As I already pointed out, if such a rule is to be adopted, it should be clarified so as to apply only to original main motions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chris Harrison

Chris Harrison

Posted
Posted

As I already pointed out, if such a rule is to be adopted, it should be clarified so as to apply only to original main motions.

They could do that but from the postings I have seen here I would not wager more than a buck that the Chair would actually know what an original main motion is to enforce such a rule. Even if the Chair did know what an original main motion is I bet that most members would not be so sure and you would see many Points of Order and Appeals arising from that confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J. J.

J. J.

Posted
Posted

Well I think it's a special rule of order, and I think it could be suspended if adopted. Apparently I'm the lone wolf, unless J.J. comes by and agrees with me, which he might do.

I do. I would also point out that General Robert's 1921 book Parliamentary Practice gives an example where the rules are suspended to prohibit one secondary motions for an entire session (pp. 19-20).

Two other points:

1. I know of no claim in RONR that it is the "basic right of the individual member" to make motions. The above example, together with the fact the assembly can adopt the previous question, limiting subsidiary motions, and can adopt an agenda limiting what main motions can be brought up, argue strongly against that premise.

2. There are certain things that are the "basic right of the individual member" that, to be superseded, must be in the bylaws, e.g. the right of a member to vote can only be altered by a bylaw provision. I know of no claim in RONR that everything that is the "basic right of the individual member" must be in the bylaws. I would refer you to NP, 1st Quarter, 2003 Q & A #26, where the research committee (which included a member of the authorship team) concluded that the right to abstain, which is specifically listed as a right, can be removed by a special rule.

The posters suggesting that this is not possible are not skating on thin ice; they are are attempting to ice skate on the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia in the middle of the July heatwave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
J. J.

J. J.

Posted
Posted

Well, since when does a Point of Order (which is formally defined as an incidental motion) require a second, super-duper or otherwise? I thought it was the right of each individual member to insist on the enforcement of the rules, RONR (10th ed.), p. 242, ll. 33-35. It seems to me that such an ordinary, special rule of order (when applied to any motion, as the original poster suggests) interferes with this right.

I think the flaw in your argument is that while this rule could not be suspended, nothing in RONR would prevent it from being superseded by a special rule. That special rule could obviously be suspended.

[i have a name for a special rule that would prohibit Points of Order. "Jacobs' Nightmare." ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...