Guest Janette Posted September 22, 2011 at 10:08 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 at 10:08 PM Question regarding 3 motions.A motion (#1) was made and seconded about opening a program at a school. Discussion began. I made a motion (#2) to postpone the motion (#1) until a certain time (next week). The President told me I could not do this because the motion (#1) had been seconded. I then made a motion (#3) to lay the motion (#1) on the table, so I could motion (#2) to postpone again. I was told I could not lay this motion (#1) on the table for the same reason. Because it had been seconded. Was the President correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 at 10:25 PM No. The proper (first three of six) steps in handling a motion are 1) a member makes a motion, 2) another member seconds it, and 3) the President "states" the question, which is to say he repeats the motion as made and then it belongs to the assembly. After that, any number of additional (subsidiary) motions may be made (such as your two), with certain restrictions at different times possible. Some of these motions, when pending, preclude some other motions from being made due to the precedence they hold.From what you've said so far, both your motions would have been in order, although the motion to Lay on the Table is often misused, as it would have been in your case. You can't lay a motion on the table and then postpone it definitely. But in both cases, your president erred in not allowing your motions from being considered. Some additional facts may shed a different light on things here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 22, 2011 at 10:29 PM Report Share Posted September 22, 2011 at 10:29 PM Was the President correct?Nope. With a few exceptions the original motion shouldn't even start to be considered without a second so the President's assertion is absurd. That claim is so absurd that I am not even sure that RONR would provide a citation that would demonstrate how absurd it is (but stay tuned). But I would suggest you refer the President to RONR/10 pp. 40-50 (the Consideration of a Main Motion), pp.172-183 (Postpone to a Certain Time or Definitely), and pp. 201-211 (Lay on the Table) and ask him to find some citation anywhere in there that would support his ludicrous claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted September 23, 2011 at 12:05 AM Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 at 12:05 AM Question regarding 3 motions.A motion (#1) was made and seconded about opening a program at a school. Discussion began. I made a motion (#2) to postpone the motion (#1) until a certain time (next week). The President told me I could not do this because the motion (#1) had been seconded. I then made a motion (#3) to lay the motion (#1) on the table, so I could motion (#2) to postpone again. I was told I could not lay this motion (#1) on the table for the same reason. Because it had been seconded. Was the President correct?My guess is that the president is completely uninformed about the nature and purpose of secondary motions, how multiple motions can be pending simultaneously, and the order of precedence among the ranked motions. It sounds to me like he needs some training about the concepts discussed in RONR (10th ed.), §5, pp. 55ff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 23, 2011 at 11:34 AM Report Share Posted September 23, 2011 at 11:34 AM It sounds to me like he needs some training about the concepts discussed in RONR (10th ed.), §5, pp. 55ff.I think a review of §1-4 and §6-60 would be in order as well. I wouldn't worry about §61 as yet. If he keeps up this approach to parliamentary despotism, he'll become familiar with it soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.