Tim Wynn Posted September 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 12:53 PM RONR (11th ed.), p. 196, ll. 16-17, contains the following language:"I move that at 9 P.M. debate be closed and the question on the resolution be put to a vote."Strictly speaking, would this language be out of order if a motion to commit or postpone was pending, since referral or postponement is possible in such a situation (p. 194, ll. 19-23)?It seems to me that a better alternate language would be the following:"That at 9 P.M. debate be closed and all pending questions be put to a vote."I don't foresee a real-world problem* with adopting either of the above motions in the given situation and ruling that the effect of each is identical. But, the language of the first motion feels out of order to me, when a motion to commit or postpone is pending.(*if two thirds think they're voting to prevent postponement or referral, then it's highly unlikely that the subsequent vote on postponement or referral will be adopted anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 12, 2012 at 02:55 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 02:55 PM Was your question rhetorical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 12, 2012 at 03:03 PM Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 03:03 PM Was your question rhetorical?No, but I'll take your question as a "yes" to my question, especially if your question was rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 12, 2012 at 03:18 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 03:18 PM Well I think the answer to your question in post #1 is, no, though the alternate wording might be clearer to the members in this particular instance. You say it "feels" out of order, would you rule a motion stated the way the book states it out of order given your facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 12, 2012 at 04:07 PM Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 04:07 PM In the situation that I proposed, I would suggest the alternate language to the member and explain that the motion to commit or postpone will not be disposed of simply by adopting a motion to end debate and put the question at a certain time. I can see where, during debate on a motion to postpone, a member might make such a motion in an attempt to prevent postponement. I don't think RONR is specifically suggesting the language on p. 196, ll. 16-17, for the situation that I proposed. Anyway, with this situation it really is the intention that is or isn't in order, not the wording. So long as everyone is clear on the effect, I suppose the wording is merely a technical point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 12, 2012 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 04:08 PM If you're explaining the effect of their vote, which I know you would, no confusion will exist using the language in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 12, 2012 at 05:57 PM Author Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 05:57 PM If you're explaining the effect of their vote, which I know you would, no confusion will exist using the language in the book.Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted September 13, 2012 at 05:22 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 at 05:22 AM . . . if a motion to commit or postpone was pending . . .It seems to me that a better alternate language would be the following:"That at 9 P.M. debate be closed and all pending questions be put to a vote."Oh. So, does this alternate language imply that, come 9 PM, even if the resolution now pending has already been referred to a committee, all questions pending at that time, whatever they happen to be, will be put to a vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 at 10:51 AM In the situation that I proposed, I would suggest the alternate language to the member and explain that the motion to commit or postpone will not be disposed of simply by adopting a motion to end debate and put the question at a certain time. I can see where, during debate on a motion to postpone, a member might make such a motion in an attempt to prevent postponement. I don't think RONR is specifically suggesting the language on p. 196, ll. 16-17, for the situation that I proposed. Anyway, with this situation it really is the intention that is or isn't in order, not the wording. So long as everyone is clear on the effect, I suppose the wording is merely a technical point.I agree.If a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is moved in any one of the forms found on page 196, and the chair insists that everyone be clear on the effect of its adoption, the time provided for debate will expire before the vote is taken on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:35 AM Oh. So, does this alternate language imply that, come 9 PM, even if the resolution now pending has already been referred to a committee, all questions pending at that time, whatever they happen to be, will be put to a vote? As Dan suggests, it would take too long to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM If a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is moved in any one of the forms found on page 196, and the chair insists that everyone be clear on the effect of its adoption, the time provided for debate will expire before the vote is taken on it.This makes me smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.