Debatability of suspend the rules

[Sean Hunt]

Is a motion to suspend the rules debatable when no other business is pending? p. 74 says that it would be an incidental main motion and hence debatable, but p. 260 indicates that the incidental and undebatable form of the motion can be made when no business is pending.

[Gary Novosielski]

The motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable. I don't see anything on page 74 to suggest that it is.

[Guest Steve Britton]

If applied to a standing rule for the duration of the current session, yes. RONR/11 pg 265-266.

[Gary Novosielski]

If applied to a standing rule for the duration of the current session, yes. RONR/11 pg 265-266.

"Yes" what?

[Guest Steve Britton]

The Incidental Motion to Suspend the Rules is undebatable. An Incidental Main Motion is debatable.

[George Mervosh]

If the motion to suspend the rules is made when no other motion is pending, yes, it is debatable.

I don't have the 11th handy but unless the Fab 5 changed it here was the rule in the 10th:

INCIDENTAL MAIN MOTIONS CORRESPONDING TO INCIDENTAL MOTIONS. Counterparts of some of the incidental motions may occur as incidental main motions. For example, a standing rule (2) can be suspended for the duration of a session (8); and a motion for such a suspension, made when no business is pending, is an incidental main motion. RONR (10th, pp. 71-72)

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, yes, that rule does appear in 11 as well, and that is what is on page 74.

But the confusion here seems to be on page 260, l 30, which states:

"The incidental motion to Suspend the Rules:

1. Can be made at any time that no question is pending...."

...[and at times when business is pending, where it would clearly not be a main motion]

Which suggests that there are cases where it would be an incidental motion, yet not an incidental main motion, even though no question is pending.

[Guest Steve Britton]

Hi George:

The citation that you are quoting is on page 74 in RONR/11. The citation on page 266 (RONR/11) "Through ab incidental main motion adopted by a majority vote, a standing rule can be suspended for the duration of the current session."

However, on page 262 RONR/11 "In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension.

If under a normal order of business and after the President's report is completed, I rise and am recognized by the President, then move that the assembly Suspend the Rules and immediately take up the Building Committee's report, is it an Incidental Motion, or an Incidental Main Motion?

Isn't the Exhaustion of the Rules Suspension contribute to the whether it's an Incidental Motion or an Incidental Main Motion?

[J. J.]

If under a normal order of business and after the President's report is completed, I rise and am recognized by the President, then move that the assembly Suspend the Rules and immediately take up the Building Committee's report, is it an Incidental Motion, or an Incidental Main Motion?

Isn't the Exhaustion of the Rules Suspension contribute to the whether it's an Incidental Motion or an Incidental Main Motion?

First, an incidental main motion to suspend the rules is debatable.

In you example, I think Suspend the Rules would be an incidental motion. It applies to some item of business "that is desired to be introduced (p. 69, ll. 13-16).

[Josh Martin]

Is a motion to suspend the rules debatable when no other business is pending?

The incidental main motion to Suspend the Rules is debatable (and can only be made while no motion is pending). An incidental motion to Suspend the Rules is undebatable, even while no motion is pending.

p. 74 says that it would be an incidental main motion and hence debatable, but p. 260 indicates that the incidental and undebatable form of the motion can be made when no business is pending.

Well, what pg. 74 specifically says is that a motion to suspend a standing rule for the duration of a session is an incidental main motion, and such a motion is debatable. It is true, however, that a motion to Suspend the Rules is sometimes an incidental motion even when no motion is pending (see pg. 69, lines 11-20), and in such cases, it is not debatable.

So it really depends on the purpose of the motion to Suspend the Rules. It is incidental if it is to be applied to a pending motion or to a motion:

1.) that it is desired to introduce

2.) that has been made but not yet stated by the chair

3.) that has just been pending

For some examples...

1.) The meeting is currently under Special Orders in the order of business. After a special order is disposed of, a member moves to Suspend the Rules in order to Take from the Table a general order.

2.) Same as above, except that a member has already made the motion to Take from the Table. A member could quickly jump in with Suspend the Rules in order to permit the motion.

3.) A vote on a main motion has just been taken, and a member moves to Suspend the Rules to retake the vote by the same method.

If a motion to Suspend the Rules does not meet the conditions on pg. 69, it's an incidental main motion. For instance, if a motion to Suspend the Rules applied to an entire meeting or session (or some portion thereof), or if it applied to a motion which would not come up until later in the session (unless the purpose is to take up that motion) it would be an incidental main motion.

If under a normal order of business and after the President's report is completed, I rise and am recognized by the President, then move that the assembly Suspend the Rules and immediately take up the Building Committee's report, is it an Incidental Motion, or an Incidental Main Motion?

An incidental motion.

Isn't the Exhaustion of the Rules Suspension contribute to the whether it's an Incidental Motion or an Incidental Main Motion?

Maybe. It may help if you explain more fully what you mean by that. I think the best way to determine the type of motion is by looking at pg. 69, lines 11-20, but there may be other factors which could serve as a guide.

[Gary Novosielski]

If a motion to Suspend the Rules does not meet the conditions on pg. 69, it's an incidental main motion. For instance, if a motion to Suspend the Rules applied to an entire meeting or session (or some portion thereof), or if it applied to a motion which would not come up until later in the session (unless the purpose is to take up that motion) it would be an incidental main motion.

So with respect to a related thread where it is desired to set a voting method that would apply to all future questions in that session, would that make it an incidental main motion (presuming it was moved when no question was pending) and if so, would it require only a majority to be adopted?

[Josh Martin]

So with respect to a related thread where it is desired to set a voting method that would apply to all future questions in that session, would that make it an incidental main motion (presuming it was moved when no question was pending)

Yes.

and if so, would it require only a majority to be adopted?

No. A motion to suspend a rule of order requires a 2/3 vote even if made as an incidental main motion, much like when a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is made as an incidental main motion.

[Sean Hunt]

Well, what pg. 74 specifically says is that a motion to suspend a standing rule for the duration of a session is an incidental main motion, and such a motion is debatable. It is true, however, that a motion to Suspend the Rules is sometimes an incidental motion even when no motion is pending (see pg. 69, lines 11-20), and in such cases, it is not debatable.

So it really depends on the purpose of the motion to Suspend the Rules. It is incidental if it is to be applied to a pending motion or to a motion:

1.) that it is desired to introduce

2.) that has been made but not yet stated by the chair

3.) that has just been pending

Thank you, this perfectly answers the question; I had missed that page.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes.

No. A motion to suspend a rule of order requires a 2/3 vote even if made as an incidental main motion, much like when a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is made as an incidental main motion.

Ah, good.

That was my intuitive feeling, but I couldn't put my finger on why.