Giving notice of motions presently out of order

[Sean Hunt]

Is it in order to give notice of a motion that is presently out of order (for reasons other than lack of notice) but will be in order when the notice is acted upon? As an example, can notice be given for a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted but still in force, if the previously-adopted motion will expire before the next regular meeting?

[jstackpo]

I have no problem answering "Yes" to your main, first, question.

But I don't think your example fits your question.

Perhaps someone more alert that I at this point can produce a better example. It may require a bit of thought.

[Bruce Lages]

I concur with Dr. Stackpole about the example given in the original post. Giving notice for a motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion that is still in force is essential if you want to amend it or rescind it with only a majority vote, But if that previously adopted motion will expire before the next regular meeting, there will be nothing left to rescind or amend.

[J. J.]

I concur with Dr. Stackpole about the example given in the original post. Giving notice for a motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion that is still in force is essential if you want to amend it or rescind it with only a majority vote, But if that previously adopted motion will expire before the next regular meeting, there will be nothing left to rescind or amend.

How about a bylaw, of a society meeting monthly, stating that no special rules of order shall be adopted prior to January 1, 2012. To adopt a special rule (and absent a MEM) you would need to give notice the previous meeting, in December 2011. Even though the motion would not be in order in 12/11, it would need notice to be adopted at the 1/12 meeting.

[Sean Hunt]

I concur with Dr. Stackpole about the example given in the original post. Giving notice for a motion that conflicts with a previously adopted motion that is still in force is essential if you want to amend it or rescind it with only a majority vote, But if that previously adopted motion will expire before the next regular meeting, there will be nothing left to rescind or amend.

I'm not referring to rescinding or amending it, but adopting an independent main motion that is at odds with it.

[jstackpo]

Well, by a close reading of p. 251 b, it is clear that it isn't improper to move a main motion in conflict with (or "at odds with") something previously adopted, but it is the adoption of such a motion (by less than the R/ASPA vote threshold) that generates a continuing breach or order.

If it were improper, then nothing could ever be changed.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, by a close reading of p. 251 b, it is clear that it isn't improper to move a main motion in conflict with (or "at odds with") something previously adopted, but it is the adoption of such a motion (by less than the R/ASPA vote threshold) that generates a continuing breach or order.

If it were improper, then nothing could ever be changed.

I don't think so. Look at page 111, lines 23-26.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is it in order to give notice of a motion that is presently out of order (for reasons other than lack of notice) but will be in order when the notice is acted upon?

Yes.

[Trina]

Is it in order to give notice of a motion that is presently out of order (for reasons other than lack of notice) but will be in order when the notice is acted upon? As an example, can notice be given for a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted but still in force, if the previously-adopted motion will expire before the next regular meeting?

As long as the act of giving notice is not itself out of order at the time (e.g. interrupting another member who has the floor), does RONR actually place any restriction on the content of notice? My inclination is to say that a notice of intended action can contain just about anything (nonsense or not, improper or not, conflicting with previous motions or not), and that an appropriate point of order has to wait until the intended action (announced by the earlier notice) actually is before the assembly. Your question suggests that the notice is OK only because the intended act will be in order by the time the notice is acted on; I don't think that is necessary. However, please cite away if I'm mistaken .

[Gary Novosielski]

As long as the act of giving notice is not itself out of order at the time (e.g. interrupting another member who has the floor), does RONR actually place any restriction on the content of notice? My inclination is to say that a notice of intended action can contain just about anything (nonsense or not, improper or not, conflicting with previous motions or not), and that an appropriate point of order has to wait until the intended action (announced by the earlier notice) actually is before the assembly. Your question suggests that the notice is OK only because the intended act will be in order by the time the notice is acted on; I don't think that is necessary. However, please cite away if I'm mistaken .

I agree.

It would not be out or order to give notice of an intended action even if that action will not be in order at the intended time.

One could imagine instances in which it may not be possible to determine, at the time of giving notice, whether the action ultimately will be in order.

[Dan Honemann]

As long as the act of giving notice is not itself out of order at the time (e.g. interrupting another member who has the floor), does RONR actually place any restriction on the content of notice? My inclination is to say that a notice of intended action can contain just about anything (nonsense or not, improper or not, conflicting with previous motions or not), and that an appropriate point of order has to wait until the intended action (announced by the earlier notice) actually is before the assembly. Your question suggests that the notice is OK only because the intended act will be in order by the time the notice is acted on; I don't think that is necessary. However, please cite away if I'm mistaken .

I do not think that a member is entitled to the floor for the purpose of giving notice of an intention to propose nonsense.

[Trina]

I do not think that a member is entitled to the floor for the purpose of giving notice of an intention to propose nonsense.

I agree that 'nonsense' is not a technical term defined in RONR; since nonsense is often in the eye of the beholder, though, how would a member be prevented from giving notice of intended nonsense?

I guess I should have left 'nonsense or not' out of my response...

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree that 'nonsense' is not a technical term defined in RONR; since nonsense is often in the eye of the beholder, though, how would a member be prevented from giving notice of intended nonsense?

I guess I should have left 'nonsense or not' out of my response...

I think nonsense would be any action sufficiently bizarre that giving notice of it would be considered frivolous or dilatory by a reasonable presiding officer.

[jstackpo]

I don't think so. Look at page 111, lines 23-26.

Resuscitating a not-quite-dead horse:

Right! Certainly it is improper to move a motion "at odds" with something previously adopted (I overstated my case back at #7...) but it sure must happen a lot in the experience of the A-Team. Why else would the book offer three methods of correcting things after the (improper) motion was adopted: (1) Reconsidering or (2) Rescinding/Amending - p. 111 - or (3) simply declaring it out of order as a continuing breach - p. 251?

Once debate on the (improper, "at odds") motion gets under way it is then clearly too late to raise a point of order that the motion is out of order - p. 250, lines 23-25 - so there is the possibility that it will be adopted, thus setting up a continuing breach. (It might even get adopted by the higher vote threshold of p. 251 b and then there would be no "continuing breach" at all. The only way to undo it then would be reconsider - if timely - or R/ASPA.)

[Dan Honemann]

Resuscitating a not-quite-dead horse:

Right! Certainly it is improper to move a motion "at odds" with something previously adopted (I overstated my case back at #7...) but it sure must happen a lot in the experience of the A-Team. Why else would the book offer three methods of correcting things after the (improper) motion was adopted: (1) Reconsidering or (2) Rescinding/Amending - p. 111 - or (3) simply declaring it out of order as a continuing breach - p. 251?

Once debate on the (improper, "at odds") motion gets under way it is then clearly too late to raise a point of order that the motion is out of order - p. 250, lines 23-25 - so there is the possibility that it will be adopted, thus setting up a continuing breach. (It might even get adopted by the higher vote threshold of p. 251 b and then there would be no "continuing breach" at all. The only way to undo it then would be reconsider - if timely - or R/ASPA.)

Well, at least we're making some progress. This is only mostly wrong.

[jstackpo]

Since I am agreeing with you in the first paragraph, it must be the second you are complaining about.

I have difficulty reconciling an assertion of "wrong" with the clear text on p. 250.

[Josh Martin]

Is it in order to give notice of a motion that is presently out of order (for reasons other than lack of notice) but will be in order when the notice is acted upon?

Yes.

As an example, can notice be given for a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted but still in force, if the previously-adopted motion will expire before the next regular meeting?

There is no need to give notice of such a motion (at least from the facts provided). When the previously adopted motion expires, the new motion will just be a regular original main motion and will not require notice.

I suppose this example might apply if this motion requires notice for some other reason, in which case, see the answer to your first question.

[Dan Honemann]

Since I am agreeing with you in the first paragraph, it must be the second you are complaining about.

I have difficulty reconciling an assertion of "wrong" with the clear text on p. 250.

A main motion (other than a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted) that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force is not out of order because of the parliamentary situation existing at the time it is made (cf. p. 250, ll. 19-26). It is improper because its substance is in conflict with the substance of an existing rule or policy. In this respect, it is comparable to a main motion that conflicts with a bylaw provision that cannot be suspended. This impropriety continues to exist during the entire time that such a motion is being considered, and, if it is adopted, even beyond its adoption. The rule on page 251, however, tells us that, even although the consideration and adoption of this motion was improper, its effectiveness is not nullified if (and only if) it was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion.

[jstackpo]

This impropriety continues to exist during the entire time that such a motion is being considered, and, if it is adopted, even beyond its adoption.

Right - the motion does NOT (suddenly) become proper just because debate gets under way (perhaps because the chair didn't realize there was a conflict and let debate begin, &c.) BUT the point (as I read them) of lines 24-26 on p. 250 is that members at that point no longer have the right or ability to raise a point that the motion is improper: "a point of order is too late". The assembly HAS to WAIT until the motion is adopted before the members can take steps to remedy things. (In debate, the members could certainly note that the motion was improper, but the parliamentary opportunity to get rid of the motion right away by having it declared it out of order is denied them.)

And, of course, during the consideration of the (improper) motion it might get amended in such a way as to eliminate the out-of-orderness of the original motion. Then the problem goes away, as it would if the unamended improper motion was defeated.

[Dan Honemann]

Right - the motion does NOT (suddenly) become proper just because debate gets under way (perhaps because the chair didn't realize there was a conflict and let debate begin, &c.) BUT the point (as I read them) of lines 24-26 on p. 250 is that members at that point no longer have the right or ability to raise a point that the motion is improper: "a point of order is too late". The assembly HAS to WAIT until the motion is adopted before the members can take steps to remedy things. (In debate, the members could certainly note that the motion was improper, but the parliamentary opportunity to get rid of the motion right away by having it declared it out of order is denied them.)

And, of course, during the consideration of the (improper) motion it might get amended in such a way as to eliminate the out-of-orderness of the original motion. Then the problem goes away, as it would if the unamended improper motion was defeated.

A point of order may be raised at any time during consideration of this type of improper main motion. As previously noted, what is said on page 250, lines 23-26, is inapplicable. We are not dealing here with "such a motion" (l.24) as the ones described on lines 20-22.

[jstackpo]

Ah, our disagreement is clarified:

I see no exceptions implicit in the phrase "no matter how clearly out of order the motion may be". (p. 250, l. 24-25)

That is about as all encompassing as could be.

If there are exceptions, I guess I'll have to wait until RONR/12 to find out what they are.

[jstackpo]

And I apologize to Sean Hunt for my part in pulling the topic away from his original question.

[Sean Hunt]

And I apologize to Sean Hunt for my part in pulling the topic away from his original question.

General Discussion at its finest!

[Dan Honemann]

General Discussion at its finest!