jstackpo Posted November 27, 2011 at 05:58 PM Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 at 05:58 PM Situation: Nothing pending; a member moves to recess, which is a main motion under this circumstance. Other members start to clutter things up with amendments and maybe other subsidiary motions.The original mover senses that this foolishness (?) may go on for a while and promptly moves the privileged motion to recess, in effect "Recess right now".Proper or dillatory? Two motions to do the same thing pending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 27, 2011 at 07:28 PM Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 at 07:28 PM It would seem like p. 343 ll 26-29 taken by itself would apply, the main motion still being in the control of the society, making the second motion to Recess improper. I say "taken by itself" because the referenced pages at the end of that line introduce the concept of business carried over from an earlier session, which is not the case here. Thus, I'm not sure if that qualification (business carried over) defeats the applicability of p. 343 to your example. But I don't find anything else that says either way...... yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 27, 2011 at 08:39 PM Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 at 08:39 PM Situation: Nothing pending; a member moves to recess, which is a main motion under this circumstance. Other members start to clutter things up with amendments and maybe other subsidiary motions.The original mover senses that this foolishness (?) may go on for a while and promptly moves the privileged motion to recess, in effect "Recess right now".Proper or dillatory? Two motions to do the same thing pending?Advanced Discussion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 27, 2011 at 08:45 PM Author Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 at 08:45 PM Fine by me...How, or by whom, does the thread get moved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM Fine by me...How, or by whom, does the thread get moved?Too late for you now; it can be moved by the Moderator.When this question came up a few years ago, I'm pretty sure that Dan Honemann opined that the privileged motion to Recess was in order.How about this scenario (assume that each motion is seconded, and stated by the chair, before the next one is made, the floor being obtained as needed):Member A (when no motion is pending): “I move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet again tomorrow at 8 p.m.”Member B: “I move to amend by striking out ‘8 p.m.’ and inserting ‘7 p.m.’”Member C: “I move to postpone the pending questions until after Unfinished Business is disposed of.”Member D: “I move to take a fifteen-minute recess.”Member E: “I move to adjourn.”Member A: “I move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet tomorrow at 8 p.m.”Member B: “I move to amend by striking out ‘8 p.m.’ and inserting ‘7 p.m.’”Member D: “Parliamentary inquiry! What in heck is going on here—can we take that recess now?!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 27, 2011 at 10:18 PM Report Share Posted November 27, 2011 at 10:18 PM My recollection was that the privileged motion to Recess was in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 29, 2011 at 01:57 AM Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 at 01:57 AM Situation: Nothing pending; a member moves to recess, which is a main motion under this circumstance. Other members start to clutter things up with amendments and maybe other subsidiary motions.The original mover senses that this foolishness (?) may go on for a while and promptly moves the privileged motion to recess, in effect "Recess right now".Proper or dillatory? Two motions to do the same thing pending?In my opinion, the motion is proper.It would seem like p. 343 ll 26-29 taken by itself would apply, the main motion still being in the control of the society, making the second motion to Recess improper. I say "taken by itself" because the referenced pages at the end of that line introduce the concept of business carried over from an earlier session, which is not the case here. Thus, I'm not sure if that qualification (business carried over) defeats the applicability of p. 343 to your example. But I don't find anything else that says either way...... yet.I don't believe what is said on pg. 343 applies here. Note the last sentence of that paragraph: "If a conflicting motion were allowed in such cases, it would interfere with the freedom of the assembly in acting on the earlier motion when its consideration is resumed." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 343, lines 28-30) But the adoption of a privileged motion to Recess does not interfere with the assembly's freedom to adopt the incidental main motion to Recess when its consideration is resumed. The assembly certainly may Recess again if it wishes (and considering the parliamentary mess in the example that led to the privileged motion to Recess to begin with, the assembly may well wish to do so after that's all sorted out). If it is true that both motions may be adopted, then the motions cannot really be said to be "conflicting."Additionally, the rules pertaining to renewal suggest that the two motions to Recess described here do not "present practically the same question" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 343, lines 24-25). Certain motions may be renewed "if they become new questions as described, even within the same meeting" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 339, lines 34-35) In the case of the motion to Recess: "A motion... to Recess can be renewed after material progress in business or in debate" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 340, lines 15-16) In the example provided, it seems clear that "material progress" has been made. While these lines refer to the making of a privileged motion to Recess after another privileged motion to Recess has been defeated, the principles seem to apply to this case as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 29, 2011 at 12:50 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2011 at 12:50 PM I don't believe what is said on pg. 343 applies here.(... snip ...)I had my doubts as well, and your explanation removes them all. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.