Disposing a question considered seriatim

[Matt Schafer]

During a recent meeting, a proposed amendment to the bylaws had several parts. When the motion was made to adopt the bylaw amendment, the chair suggested consideration seriatim; no member objected. During the consideration of the parts, some members had the sense that the final vote on the amendment would be lost. A member moved to postpone indefinitely; the chair stated the question and announced that the motion could not be considered during seriatim consideration of the main question.

1) Can a member then move to consider the amendment as a whole in order to stop further consideration of the parts?

2) If a motion to consider as a whole is in order, what is the vote required? a) Majority; or two-thirds or a vote of a majority of the entire membership?

[Guest Guest]

A member moved to postpone indefinitely; the chair stated the question and announced that the motion could not be considered during seriatim consideration of the main question.

If all that was immediately pending was the bylaw amendment, why not?

[tctheatc]

a motion to postpone indefinitely yields to amendments, and while it is pending the entire question is open to debate (RONR p279). So the chair should state the question on the motion to postpone but it is not debated/voted until the seriatim consideration is done. (which he apparently did)

Would the motion to reconsider or ASPA be the way to "take back" the entire amendment?

[Matt Schafer]

Would the motion to reconsider or ASPA be the way to "take back" the entire amendment?

I think my original questions hinge on whether the chair's suggestion to consider seriatim is the same thing as the chair's assumption of a motion that is then adopted by unanimous consent when no member objects. If that is the case, then reconsideration of the motion to consider seriatim is out of order (p. 277, ll. 13-16), and a motion to consider as a whole would then be a form of Amending Something Previously Adopted, which requires a two-thirds vote (or vote of a majority of the membership).

Conceptually it seems like they are equivalent, but the wording of the text on page 277, line 34 through page 278, line 1 implies otherwise.

[Gary c Tesser]

... a motion to consider as a whole would then be a form of Amending Something Previously Adopted, .

But ASPA is only in order when nothing is pending (P. 305, SDC 1), so how could we do this now?

[Matt Schafer]

But ASPA is only in order when nothing is pending (P. 305, SDC 1), so how could we do this now?

That's a good point.

This evening, I spent some more time reading section 28. Page 278, lines 9 through 14 talk about this situation. In my previous readings of this paragraph, I thought it implied that the motion to consider as a whole needed to be moved at the time that the chair suggested consideration by paragraph. I see now that the text does not state a limitation on when the motion for considering as a whole can be made. Also, it seems silly that the assembly would not be allowed to decide to save time by ending the consideration of the individual parts. Going back to my original questions, that would lead to answers of 1) Yes, the motion to consider as a whole is in order, and 2) It requires a majority vote.

[Shmuel Gerber]

That's a good point.

This evening, I spent some more time reading section 28. Page 278, lines 9 through 14 talk about this situation. In my previous readings of this paragraph, I thought it implied that the motion to consider as a whole needed to be moved at the time that the chair suggested consideration by paragraph. I see now that the text does not state a limitation on when the motion for considering as a whole can be made. Also, it seems silly that the assembly would not be allowed to decide to save time by ending the consideration of the individual parts. Going back to my original questions, that would lead to answers of 1) Yes, the motion to consider as a whole is in order, and 2) It requires a majority vote.

Please explain how a motion can be considered as a whole, rather than by parts, when parts of it, but not the whole, have already been considered by parts.

[Dan Honemann]

During a recent meeting, a proposed amendment to the bylaws had several parts. When the motion was made to adopt the bylaw amendment, the chair suggested consideration seriatim; no member objected. During the consideration of the parts, some members had the sense that the final vote on the amendment would be lost. A member moved to postpone indefinitely; the chair stated the question and announced that the motion could not be considered during seriatim consideration of the main question.

1) Can a member then move to consider the amendment as a whole in order to stop further consideration of the parts?

2) If a motion to consider as a whole is in order, what is the vote required? a) Majority; or two-thirds or a vote of a majority of the entire membership?

It seems to me that if the chair has suggested that a proposed amendment to the bylaws, consisting of several parts, be considered seriatim, any motion to consider it as a whole must be made at that time. Once seriatim consideration has commenced, it will be too late to do so (although the assembly could agree to suspend the rules in order to proceed to consider the proposed amendment as a whole). In other words, I think that the assembly’s previous acquiescence to seriatim consideration is assumed. Such acquiescence cannot be reconsidered.

On the other hand, I think that, if such a proposed bylaw amendment is being considered as a whole, a motion that it be considered seriatim can be made at any time when the proposed amendment itself, or a motion that it be indefinitely postponed, is immediately pending.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On the other hand, I think that, if such a proposed bylaw amendment is being considered as a whole, a motion that it be considered seriatim can be made at any time when the proposed amendment itself, or a motion that it be indefinitely postponed, is immediately pending.

But how would that work? Unless the reading has been waived, the whole amendment has already been read and is being considered. Now, when the assembly wakes up and decides it should be considered seriatim, is it going to be read all over again, one part at a time?

In my previous post, I was suggesting (in an off-hand way) that a motion can be considered as a whole, or it can be considered seriatim, but not both -- somewhat akin to how an objection to the consideration of a question cannot be made after the question is already being considered.

It seems to me that if the chair has suggested that a proposed amendment to the bylaws, consisting of several parts, be considered seriatim, any motion to consider it as a whole must be made at that time. Once seriatim consideration has commenced, it will be too late to do so (although the assembly could agree to suspend the rules in order to proceed to consider the proposed amendment as a whole). In other words, I think that the assembly’s previous acquiescence to seriatim consideration is assumed. Such acquiescence cannot be reconsidered.

I do think the rules could be suspended to stop the seriatim consideration and open the whole motion to debate and amendment, but there is still the matter of reading the remaining parts.

[Dan Honemann]

But how would that work? Unless the reading has been waived, the whole amendment has already been read and is being considered. Now, when the assembly wakes up and decides it should be considered seriatim, is it going to be read all over again, one part at a time?

Yes, unless the reading of any part is waived.

[Burke Balch]

It has been suggested that after seriatim consideration has already begun, a motion to suspend the rules could be adopted to allow consideration as a whole, whereupon the motion to postpone indefinitely would then become immediately pending. I think that is correct. [since under the facts as given postpone indefinitely had just been moved, no amendment could then have been pending.] It may be worth noting, however, that the desire to move promptly to a vote on postpone indefinitely could thereafter be thwarted by the making of any motion or motions to amend.

An alternative procedural suggestion would be to move the Previous Question on the entire document (see RONR [11th ed.], p. 279, ll. 23-26), which would bring the assembly to an immediate vote on the motion to postpone the proposed bylaws amendment indefinitely.

Of course, such a course of action would be advisable only if its proponents believed there to be no need for further debate on the motion to postpone indefinitely in order to secure majority support for it.

[Matt Schafer]

I do think the rules could be suspended to stop the seriatim consideration and open the whole motion to debate and amendment, but there is still the matter of reading the remaining parts.

The same problem exists if the Previous Question is ordered when the assembly is still considering the individual parts. After the assembly votes to suspend the rules to consider as a whole or orders the previous question, in order to reduce confusion, the chair should state that the question before the assembly is the adoption of the bylaw amendment, reading the entire main question as it stands after the amendment of any of the individual parts already considered. (Or at least, that's what I would do if I was presiding officer.)

It seems to me that if the chair has suggested that a proposed amendment to the bylaws, consisting of several parts, be considered seriatim, any motion to consider it as a whole must be made at that time. Once seriatim consideration has commenced, it will be too late to do so (although the assembly could agree to suspend the rules in order to proceed to consider the proposed amendment as a whole). In other words, I think that the assembly’s previous acquiescence to seriatim consideration is assumed. Such acquiescence cannot be reconsidered.

On the other hand, I think that, if such a proposed bylaw amendment is being considered as a whole, a motion that it be considered seriatim can be made at any time when the proposed amendment itself, or a motion that it be indefinitely postponed, is immediately pending.

Is this an exception to page 278, lines 12-14, which states that the rules for a motion to consider as a whole are identical to the rules for a motion to consider seriatim?

[Dan Honemann]

Is this an exception to page 278, lines 12-14, which states that the rules for a motion to consider as a whole are identical to the rules for a motion to consider seriatim?

No. I don’t think so.

The sentence on page 278, lines 12-14, which states that the rules for a motion to consider as a whole are identical to the rules for a motion to consider seriatim, rather clearly assumes that the motion to consider as a whole has been made under the circumstances described in the immediately preceding sentence. In the immediately preceding sentence we are told that “If the chair suggests consideration by paragraph …” a member can move to consider the motion as a whole.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On the other hand, I think that, if such a proposed bylaw amendment is being considered as a whole, a motion that it be considered seriatim can be made at any time when the proposed amendment itself, or a motion that it be indefinitely postponed, is immediately pending.

But how would that work? Unless the reading has been waived, the whole amendment has already been read and is being considered. Now, when the assembly wakes up and decides it should be considered seriatim, is it going to be read all over again, one part at a time?

Yes, unless the reading of any part is waived.

Actually, now that I've thought and read about this some more, I see that the issue of additional readings is not the problem I first thought it could be.

If the motion (the bylaw amendment) is very long, yet is actually begun to be considered as a whole, then almost certainly it would be read only once (if it is read at all) during the moving+stating procedure, not twice. (See RONR, 11th ed., p. 33, lines 15-34; and pp. 38-39.)

But, as shown on page 558, even a proposed full set of bylaws is read in its entirety when moved (unless the first reading is omitted) although it will then be considered seriatim, wherein each part is read again before being open to debate and amendment.

Therefore, any delay in the decision to consider the motion seriatim will almost certainly not, by itself, cause the main motion to be read more times than it otherwise would be.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I do think the rules could be suspended to stop the seriatim consideration and open the whole motion to debate and amendment, but there is still the matter of reading the remaining parts.

The same problem exists if the Previous Question is ordered when the assembly is still considering the individual parts. After the assembly votes to suspend the rules to consider as a whole or orders the previous question, in order to reduce confusion, the chair should state that the question before the assembly is the adoption of the bylaw amendment, reading the entire main question as it stands after the amendment of any of the individual parts already considered. (Or at least, that's what I would do if I was presiding officer.)

That's an interesting point, but the problem is not exactly the same. First, as I mentioned in my reply of a few minutes ago, even if a motion is being considered seriatim, that doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't read in its entirety when moved. Second, when the Previous Question is ordered after there has been any debate or amendment, regardless of whether the motion was being considered as a whole or by parts, the entire motion must be read again (at least upon the demand of any member) before being put to a vote. [see p. 46, ll. 1-13; p. 299, ll. 3-8.]

But in your scenario, where you say the assembly wants to stop the part-by-part consideration in order to save time, it's not clear that reading the entire motion at that point would be a time-saver. I would suggest that the member making the motion to Suspend the Rules specify how to proceed, such as by proposing, for example, that the remaining parts of the amendment be read all at one time, after which the entire motion (and the motion to postpone indefinitely, if there is one) will be open for consideration; or by proposing that the second reading of the remaining parts be omitted, and the entire motion opened for consideration immediately.

[Edited to add RONR citations.]