Guest WannaBe Posted January 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 11:56 AM Is a motion to ask for the resignation of the President an original main motion or an incidental main motion? That is, would it be in order to raise an Objection to the Consideration of such a motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:18 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:18 PM How could it be an incidental main motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM Looks like an original main motion to me. (See RONR 11th ed. p. 101 ll. 10-25 for more on the distinguishing characteristics of IMMs)Albeit a somewhat pointless one, as the President is under no obligation to do anything at all if the motion is adopted.edited, days later, to add the italicized text -- that is what I thought I wrote in my response, but WannaBe's questioning post this morning made me go back and check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 12:59 PM Albeit a somewhat pointless one, as the President is under no obligation to do anything at all if the motion is adopted.I suppose it could be seen as a form of censure: "We don't like the job you're doing and we think you should quit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 19, 2012 at 01:15 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 01:15 PM Hey, who knows - he may just agree and resign. "You don't want me here, fine. I quit!" But since a resignation is a voluntary act which the president can refuse to do, it seems pointless to ask for it. Behind this seem to be some other issues that the membership feels can only be resolved by removal of the president, so while addressing those through disciplinary procedures may be in the future, this is at least a first (if not small) step in that direction. And they may get lucky. Whether it's an original or incidental main motion, well...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 19, 2012 at 01:58 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 01:58 PM I suppose it could be seen as a form of censure: "We don't like the job you're doing and we think you should quit."And even though the motion does not include a parliamentary term, it does seem to lean toward being an IMM. Either way it's a wonderful question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 19, 2012 at 03:52 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 03:52 PM I think that if someone would get the floor, with no business pending, and, out of the blue, say "I move that the assembly request the president resign," it would be an OMM. In many circumstaces, it could be an IMM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 19, 2012 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 06:28 PM O George, our first quarrel.O J. J., our 35th quarrel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted January 19, 2012 at 06:49 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 06:49 PM I would say that it would be a main motion. However, the President is free to ignore the motion if it passed. If there are grounds for wanting the President out of office, it might be better to go through the disciplinary process - the President would be free to resign before the conclusion of the process (and it is not unheard of a President resigning before being kicked out of office.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WannaBe Posted January 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM Several have posted that it is a main motion. Yes, I know it is a main motion, but INCIDENTAL main motion or ORIGINAL main motion? That is my question. The reason I ask is that we expect the motion to be made. We realize its effect is minimal, and it won't be adopted. But we want to shut it down immediately without even considering it or allowing even the maker of the motion to get the floor to discuss it. Objection to Consideration seems like the way, but it is only in order if the motion is an original main motion, not incidental main motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM Several have posted that it is a main motion. Yes, I know it is a main motion, but INCIDENTAL main motion or ORIGINAL main motion? That is my question. The reason I ask is that we expect the motion to be made. We realize its effect is minimal, and it won't be adopted. But we want to shut it down immediately without even considering it or allowing even the maker of the motion to get the floor to discuss it. Objection to Consideration seems like the way, but it is only in order if the motion is an original main motion, not incidental main motion.What you are experiencing is the reluctance of parliamentarians to provide a "yes" or "no" sort of answer to a question of this nature without being fully familiar with all of the facts in the particular case. J.J. (who ain't no slouch) seems to think that, in many circumstances, a motion to ask for the resignation of the President could be an incidental main motion, but I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that, in your circumstances, the motion will be an original main motion.Go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted January 21, 2012 at 02:25 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 02:25 PM What you are experiencing is the reluctance of parliamentarians to provide a "yes" or "no" sort of answer to a question of this nature without being fully familiar with all of the facts in the particular case. J.J. (who ain't no slouch) seems to think that, in many circumstances, a motion to ask for the resignation of the President could be an incidental main motion, but I'm willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that, in your circumstances, the motion will be an original main motion.Go for it. Can a motion raised under a question of privilege (as the acceptance of the resignation of an officer is a matter of privilege) be an original main motion, or is it always incidental? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 21, 2012 at 02:47 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 02:47 PM Several have posted that it is a main motion. Yes, I know it is a main motion, but INCIDENTAL main motion or ORIGINAL main motion? That is my question. The reason I ask is that we expect the motion to be made. We realize its effect is minimal, and it won't be adopted. But we want to shut it down immediately without even considering it or allowing even the maker of the motion to get the floor to discuss it. Objection to Consideration seems like the way, but it is only in order if the motion is an original main motion, not incidental main motion.Ah -- a real situation, not just a hypothetical .If the motion to ask for resignation is made out of the blue, I don't see how it could be an IMM. What is it incidental to? In other words, what would be the 'substantive matter in which the assembly's involvement has begun earlier'? (RONR 11th ed. p. 101 ll. 22-23)An IMM 'does not mark the beginning of a particular involvement of the assembly in a substantive matter, as an original main motion does.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 101 ll. 16-18) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:05 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:05 PM If the motion to request the resignation is defeated, or if the objection to the consideration is sustained, the motion to request the resignation can be renewed at the next session (and every subsequent session assuming the same approach is taken successfully again and again).So, would there be any sense to adopting the motion, after which the president simply declines to resign? The motion, having been adopted, now cannot be renewed at the next session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:13 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:13 PM ...So, would there be any sense to adopting the motion, after which the president simply declines to resign? The motion, having been adopted, now cannot be renewed at the next session, and would likely not be rescinded at subsequent meetings, assuming the president's support level remains high enough.Although this makes sense from a game-playing point of view, it's hard to imagine in real life. A majority would have to vote to ask the president to resign -- leaving this as an adopted motion in the minutes of the organization -- even though that majority is presumably opposed (perhaps strongly opposed) to the motion asking for the resignation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:24 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:24 PM Although this makes sense from a game-playing point of view, it's hard to imagine in real life. A majority would have to vote to ask the president to resign -- leaving this as an adopted motion in the minutes of the organization -- even though that majority is presumably opposed (perhaps strongly opposed) to the motion asking for the resignation.Well, that's a good point. It seems clear that WannaBe's group, or most of them at least, don't want to even consider this, hoping I suppose to make the whole issue of asking for the president's resignation go away, which it will but only for the current session. Just trying to think ahead.ps. I apparently edited my post as you were posting, to remove the meaningless reference to rescinding. Timing is everything, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:27 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:27 PM So, would there be any sense to adopting the motion, after which the president simply declines to resign? The motion, having been adopted, now cannot be renewed at the next session.Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:30 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:30 PM Can a motion raised under a question of privilege (as the acceptance of the resignation of an officer is a matter of privilege) be an original main motion, or is it always incidental?What difference does it make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:39 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:39 PM So, would there be any sense to adopting the motion, after which the president simply declines to resign? The motion, having been adopted, now cannot be renewed at the next session.Why couldn't it? After the motion is adopted the assembly would ask the President to resign and he would presumably decline. At that point wouldn't the motion be fully executed and thus could be renewed the next session (whatever good that may do)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:42 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:42 PM What difference does it make?I think the difference would be that the OP is wanting to know if Objection to the Consideration of the Question can be applied to the motion/request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:50 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:50 PM I think the difference would be that the OP is wanting to know if Objection to the Consideration of the Question can be applied to the motion/request.I was responding to Sean Hunt, who has asked a different question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:54 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 03:54 PM Why couldn't it? After the motion is adopted the assembly would ask the President to resign and he would presumably decline. At that point wouldn't the motion be fully executed and thus could be renewed the next session (whatever good that may do)?That thought just popped in as your post appeared. So, there isn't even a way to prevent renewal of the motion at later sessions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted January 21, 2012 at 04:21 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 04:21 PM So, there isn't even a way to prevent renewal of the motion at later sessions?I don't think so unless the assembly adopted a Special Rule on the subject or the President ruled the motion out of order as being dilitory (because it is in effect meaningless as he would decline the request) though I suspect that a) it would be Appealed (and should be overturned) and would go over like a lead balloon and probably do him more harm than if he just let the assembly deal with it. However, if it was an Original Main Motion its consideration could be objected to and if it was an IMM the Previous Question could be ordered after the motion maker got his time to speak (using the strategy that Josh Martin mentione in post 8 in his response to Trina in this thread). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Me£Mine Posted January 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM Report Share Posted January 21, 2012 at 11:37 PM I'm left wondering about the circumstances in which the 'motion to ask you resign' is/would/could-be an IMMIf I may guess, perhaps in the context of a motion to begin a disciplinary hearing? Or a motion to remove from office, assuming that's allowed in the bylaws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveghi Posted January 22, 2012 at 09:43 AM Report Share Posted January 22, 2012 at 09:43 AM First, let's distinguish this motion from a request/inquiry. It is not a "Requests and Inquiries" motion because anybody can ask for somebody to resign so it is not a request that requires permission of the assembly as stated on RONR (11th ed.), p. 292, ll. 14-16Second, adoption of this motion would simply place an assembly on record as asking for a resignation, clearly not binding. The assembly could ask for a plate lunch if they like, provided it was a valid motion.(We got close to this motion in real life with a proposed motion of "no confidence." I hope none of you were engaged for a group that came close to this type of motion on the evening of a special meeting on 1/19 in Hawaii!)Third, there are 2 characteristics that would make the motion an incidental main motion, based upon RONR (11th ed.), p. 101, ll. 5-25.Characteristic 1The first question is, Does the motion, "propose an action specifically defined under parliamentary law and described by a particular parliamentary term[?]."If there is an action, what is it? If this motion is adopted, it doesn't really do anything except express the assembly's request for a resignation. The adoption of a resignation, if presented, is a completely different matter.Thus, we don't meet the first characteristic in RONR.Characteristic 2The second question is whether this motion, "does not mark the beginning of a particular involvement of the assembly in a substantive matter, as an original main motion does."The second characteristic in RONR (11th ed.), p. 101, l. 20-25 provides actions that can be proposed by the incidentali main motions "may" relate to certain items.This second characteristic is fact dependent.SummaryWe never get to Characteristic 2 because the motion doesn't meet the requirements of Characteristic 1.Therefore, it is an original main motion and its consideratrion can be objected to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.