Motion to Ask for Resignation

[Trina]

...

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 1

The 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.

...

We 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.

I think this line of argument is flawed. Looking at the subsequent paragraphs on p. 101, it's not hard to construct a situation in which the motion to ask for the President's resignation is, for example, a motion to adopt a committee recommendation, or a motion to rafify an action taken at an inquorate meeting. Other examples can probably be constructed.

I'm not saying that any of these examples reflect what is happening in the original poster's organization; however, I think it's incorrect to conclude that the motion cannot ever be an IMM.

[J. J.]

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.

In looking at Wannabe's subsequent answer, I'd be inclined to agree that this sounds like an original main motion.