Suspend the rules

[Guest Guest]

If a motion is made to suspend the rules and object to the consideration of (an incidential main motion), does the chair take one 2/3 vote, or two?

[Shmuel Gerber]

If a motion is made to suspend the rules and object to the consideration of (an incidential main motion), does the chair take one 2/3 vote, or two?

In order to make a motion to Suspend the Rules, a member must first obtain the floor when no one else has it. Since the maker of the main motion, which is debatable, is entitled to preference in recognition, this tactic would essentially require his or her cooperation (which is unlikely) or at least parliamentary somnolence (only a bit more likely). But, assuming that the objector somehow obtains the floor, I think both functions (suspending the rules and objecting to consideration) should be decided by the vote on a single motion, as described on page 262, lines 8-17.

So, essentially, the motion to Suspend the Rules can dispose of the main motion as if its consideration had been objected to, but it's not really an Objection to Consideration, which has the characteristics of being in order when another member has the floor and not requiring a second. See also http://www.robertsru...st.html#2006_20

[Edited (twice) to add last paragraph.]

[Steven Britton]

Hi Shmuel:

If I'm understanding what you're stating:

1) strictly speaking, in accordance to standard charactiistic number two, (p. 268, line 3), object to consideration cannot be applied to an incidental main motion.

2) However, as long as someone doesn't interupt (The motion to suspend rules cannot interrupt and needs a second), they can move to suspend the rules and proceed to a vote on a motion to postpone indefinitely, which in this case both motions would be adoption by one 2/3rds vote? And accomplishes the same thing.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Hi Shmuel:

If I'm understanding what you're stating:

1) strictly speaking, in accordance to standard charactiistic number two, (p. 268, line 3), object to consideration cannot be applied to an incidental main motion.

2) However, as long as someone doesn't interupt (The motion to suspend rules cannot interrupt and needs a second), they can move to suspend the rules and proceed to a vote on a motion to postpone indefinitely, which in this case both motions would be adoption by one 2/3rds vote? And accomplishes the same thing.

1) Yes, that's right -- but I would spell it differently. :-)

2) No, I don't think that a motion to Postpone Indefinitely accomplishes the same thing as objecting to consideration. My "see also" reference to Official Interpretation 2006-20 was only to point out that it is impossible to object to consideration of a question after its consideration has begun.

What I'm saying is that, assuming that a member other than the maker of an incidental main motion obtains the floor before consideration of that main motion has begun, the member may offer a motion to "suspend the rules and object to the consideration of the question," which should be interpreted as a motion to "suspend the rules and refuse to consider the question". This would require a second and a two-thirds vote.

[Steven Britton]

"assuming that a member other than the maker of an incidental main motion obtains the floor before consideration of that main motion has begun,"

In the situation that you've described, wouldn't someone obtaining the floor just prior to the incidental main motion becoming the immediate pending question and for the purpose of making a motion to suspend rules, be an "interruption?"

[Guest Nancy N.]

Steven interrupting what?

3

[Shmuel Gerber]

"assuming that a member other than the maker of an incidental main motion obtains the floor before consideration of that main motion has begun,"

In the situation that you've described, wouldn't someone obtaining the floor just prior to the incidental main motion becoming the immediate pending question and for the purpose of making a motion to suspend rules, be an "interruption?"

When I said "before consideration of that main motion has begun," I meant consideration it in the same sense as used in §26 (and in §4, for that matter) -- that is, before there has been any debate (or any subsidiary motion, etc.):

1) Member A makes the main motion.

2) Member B seconds it.

3) The chair states the question on it.

The question has now been brought before the assembly and is pending, but its consideration has not yet begun.

4) Member A doesn't seek the floor, but Member C does. The chair assigns the floor to Member C, who makes the motion to Suspend the Rules; it is seconded, etc.

[Steven Britton]

When I said "before consideration of that main motion has begun," I meant consideration it in the same sense as used in §26 (and in §4, for that matter) -- that is, before there has been any debate (or any subsidiary motion, etc.):

1) Member A makes the main motion.

2) Member B seconds it.

3) The chair states the question on it.

The question has now been brought before the assembly and is pending, but its consideration has not yet begun.

4) Member A doesn't seek the floor, but Member C does. The chair assigns the floor to Member C, who makes the motion to Suspend the Rules; it is seconded, etc.

Thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions and taking the time to clarify.

Steve B.

[Steven Britton]

Thank you for taking the time to answer all my questions and taking the time to clarify.

Steve B.

When making a motion to ratify or to rescind or amend something previously adopted, I will always be sure to speak in debate, first.