debating undebatable motion

[Trina]

Growing out of this recent thread, particularly a side issue I raised in post #21:

http://robertsrules....ent-of-meeting/

I asked what happens if debate has started on a question which is undebatable under the rules (for example, a motion to adjourn). My guess was that once debate was underway, it would be too late to raise a point of order that debate was not allowed.

Mr. Martin responded:

I'd rethink that one. I assume you're using scenarios such as the lack of a second or when a motion is not in order in the existing parliamentary situation as parallel cases, but I think this is quite different. In those cases, there's only one breach - the motion or the lack of a second - and once the opportunity has passed, it's too late to complain.

This case would be more comparable to members making points which are not germane. Each instance is a separate breach of the rules. There's no need to listen to several more members ramble off-topic (or ramble on when an undebatable motion is pending) just because members failed to enforce the rules the first time.

So... is debate a single entity (like the camel that sticks its nose into the tent), and once it has been allowed in, it is too late to object? Or is it a series of independent entities (maybe like a family of mice coming into the tent one by one), allowing multiple opportunities to object?

And, although Mr. Martin uses the phrase 'ramble on', which gives the impression that the debate is without value (and, therefore, perhaps, can be interrupted without consequence), I think that may be misleading. Take a motion which is debatable under some circumstances, but undebatable under others -- a motion to take an upcoming vote by ballot. Let's assume that a question is pending, and a member moves to take the vote by ballot. The motion is seconded and debate (improperly) starts on the motion. The member who made the motion speaks at length, in favor of taking the vote by ballot. A member who is strongly opposed is getting ready to seek recognition. Meanwhile, a third member vaguely remembers something about motions related to methods of voting, digs out his copy of RONR, leafs through the book, and -- just as the first member is wrapping up his comments -- interrupts with a point of order. Should the chair rule the point of order well taken, cutting off debate at this point? It hardly seems fair... which is what led to my assumption that the point of order would no longer be timely once debate had actually started.

Moreover, in this particular instance, RONR does not make a claim that debate on method of voting is always improper (if it were improper under all circumstances, then one could perhaps argue that any debate on this matter falls into the category of 'rambling on' and wasting the assembly's time). RONR clearly allows for the assumption that debate on the method of voting matters (and that such debate is proper, under the right circumstances).

[David A Foulkes]

I don't think that allowing debate on an undebatable (under the current parliamentary circumstances) motion to improperly take place, and continue, makes the motion now somehow debatable. I consider debate as the single camel variety, one of several "phases" that takes place during consideration of a question. That is, debate is of a single duration, from the moment the first member begins debating until the moment the chair puts the question, or some other interruption occurs such as the moving of a subsidiary motion, making of a Point of Order, etc., that would begin a new "phase" that temporarily stops consideration (and debate) of the pending motion.

In that respect, a Point of Order would be timely at any point during debate regardless of how many members are allowed to speak in debate.

[Trina]

I guess my animal analogy was unclear after all , judging by Mr. Foulkes response. I was thinking that each animal (camel or mouse) could not be bisected -- once its nose is allowed in, it's too late to keep the whole creature from coming in.

In parliamentary terms, is there one breach, or multiple breaches during improper debate (on a motion to take a vote by ballot, as described in the original post)?

edited:

David, are you saying that as long as the assembly is still in the midst of the (improper) debate phase, and has not moved on to do something else, a point of order is still timely?

[David A Foulkes]

I guess my animal analogy was unclear after all , judging by Mr. Foulkes response. I was thinking that each animal (camel or mouse) could not be bisected -- once its nose is allowed in, it's too late to keep the whole creature from coming in.

In parliamentary terms, is there one breach, or multiple breaches during improper debate (on a motion to take a vote by ballot, as described in the original post)?

Oh, I think a whack on the nose (i.e. Point of Order) to the camel might cause it to back out of the tent (i.e. stop debate). But to continue the analogy a little further, if the camel's tail makes its way into the tent (i.e. debate is concluded and the chair puts the question), it's now too late to raise a Point of Order on the allowance of debate. The breach has been healed.

Which is another way of saying, in my opinion, that the continuation of debate on an undebatable motion is a single breach of a continuing nature, subject to a Point of Order at any time during debate on the pending question, that heals with the putting of the question by the chair.

[Trina]

Thank you, you have (presciently) answered the question I tacked on at the end of my previous post.