George Mervosh Posted October 29, 2012 at 05:37 PM Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 05:37 PM If the rule in RONR (11th ed.), p. 265, ll. 8-10 is violated, for example, postponing a motion from the monthly meeting in October to the monthly meeting in December, would the members attending the November meeting be able to raise a point of order regarding the improper postponement citing a continuing breach of the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted October 29, 2012 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 05:51 PM I would say that they could because Postponing the motion beyond the next session would tie the hands of the intervening assemblies which I would think would be a p. 251(d) violation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted October 29, 2012 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 06:43 PM And arguing in the negative ... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 29, 2012 at 06:50 PM Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 06:50 PM If the rule in RONR (11th ed.), p. 265, ll. 8-10 is violated, for example, postponing a motion from the monthly meeting in October to the monthly meeting in December, would the members attending the November meeting be able to raise a point of order regarding the improper postponement citing a continuing breach of the rules?I would think that how, exactly, the matter should be handled depends upon the circumstances, but the main point is that nothing prevents the assembly at the November meeting from taking up the motion at that time -- and it will not require a two-thirds vote to do so. Generally speaking, I think the motion can, and probably should, be taken up at the November meeting as if it were unfinished business.PS - My recollection is that Dan Seabold had started one or more very interesting threads on this subject quite some time ago, but I don't know how to retrieve them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 29, 2012 at 07:25 PM Author Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 07:25 PM PS - My recollection is that Dan Seabold had started one or more very interesting threads on this subject quite some time ago, but I don't know how to retrieve them.I searched and I couldn't find it either...it might have even been under the old forum threads which are kaput (at least to us). More questions on this, later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 29, 2012 at 07:52 PM Report Share Posted October 29, 2012 at 07:52 PM . . . it might have even been under the old forum threads . . .That seems likely as there are no posts listed for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 01:44 PM Generally speaking, I think the motion can, and probably should, be taken up at the November meeting as if it were unfinished business.Category c) ? Because by postponing it too far it could only legitimately have been a general order that had to be dealt with at the October meeting? It clearly was not intended to be a general order for the November meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 30, 2012 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 03:29 PM Category c) ? Because by postponing it too far it could only legitimately have been a general order that had to be dealt with at the October meeting? It clearly was not intended to be a general order for the November meeting.Well, I don't think that it falls very neatly into any particular one of the categories listed on pages 358-59, but I don't think it needs to. After all, we are dealing with a motion that has not been properly disposed of because of a violation of these rules that we are considering. However, I won't argue with your rationale for placing it in category c. if you think it helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 30, 2012 at 04:17 PM Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 04:17 PM Well, I don't think that it falls very neatly into any particular one of the categories listed on pages 358-59, but I don't think it needs to. After all, we are dealing with a motion that has not been properly disposed of because of a violation of these rules that we are considering. However, I won't argue with your rationale for placing it in category c. if you think it helps. Amen, and no, but thanks anyway. I suppose it doesn't matter what you call it....the fact is the assembly can deal with it in November without a 2/3 vote as you already noted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted October 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 04:45 PM So is the following correct?(last post):1) If the cited rule is violated, no point of order is required (though not prohibited) at the November meeting. The chair can proceed as shown on p. 359, l. 8ff (though some explanation to the assembly makes sense).2) If a point of order regarding the violation is made becuase the chair isn't savy enough to catch it, it need not be categorized into one of the five categories on p. 251.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted October 30, 2012 at 05:04 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 05:04 PM Can someone explain why the postponement may be ignored as if it never happened? George is trying to pin down the continuing breach which permits this course, but I don't think one exists. Page 87 calls the principle of freedom of each new session a "general rule" which can be changed by adopting a special rule of order. This does not sound like a fundamental parliamentary principle to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 30, 2012 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 05:12 PM So is the following correct?(last post):1) If the cited rule is violated, no point of order is required (though not prohibited) at the November meeting. The chair can proceed as shown on p. 359, l. 8ff (though some explanation to the assembly makes sense).2) If a point of order regarding the violation is made becuase the chair isn't savy enough to catch it, it need not be categorized into one of the five categories on p. 251.?I don't have a problem with either of these statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 30, 2012 at 05:16 PM Report Share Posted October 30, 2012 at 05:16 PM Can someone explain why the postponement may be ignored as if it never happened? George is trying to pin down the continuing breach which permits this course, but I don't think one exists. Page 87 calls the principle of freedom of each new session a "general rule" which can be changed by adopting a special rule of order. This does not sound like a fundamental parliamentary principle to me.The postponement to the December meeting didn't happen because the rule against it happening is a rule which cannot be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted November 2, 2012 at 04:44 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 at 04:44 AM Since I'm in both the mode and mood tonight, you might see: The Hand Tying Effect, National Parliamentarian, First Quarter 2012I believe the conclusion is the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousBlue Posted November 2, 2012 at 08:08 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 at 08:08 PM The postponement to the December meeting didn't happen because the rule against it happening is a rule which cannot be suspended.Since the postponement didn't happen, why should the motion purportedly postponed come up as a "general order" at the December meeting? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the motion in question does not come up automatically at the December meeting, BUT that any member can renew the motion at the December meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 2, 2012 at 08:32 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2012 at 08:32 PM Since the postponement didn't happen, why should the motion purportedly postponed come up as a "general order" at the December meeting? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the motion in question does not come up automatically at the December meeting, BUT that any member can renew the motion at the December meeting?My response In post #13 was rather imprecise. I should have said that the postponement may be ignored as if it had never happened (I was responding to the question asked in post #11). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousBlue Posted November 3, 2012 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 03:44 PM My response In post #13 was rather imprecise. I should have said that the postponement may be ignored as if it had never happened (I was responding to the question asked in post #11).If the purported postponement may be ignored as if it had never happened, isn't the result the same as it would be if the postponement actually had not been voted upon? That is, why would it become a general order for the December meeting? Why wouldn't it simply be renewable at that meeting?More importantly, if -- despite the purported (invalid) postponement from the September to the December meeting-- a member sought at the October meeting to renew the motion, wouldn't that be in order? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted November 3, 2012 at 04:23 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 04:23 PM If the purported postponement may be ignored as if it had never happened, isn't the result the same as it would be if the postponement actually had not been voted upon? That is, why would it become a general order for the December meeting? Why wouldn't it simply be renewable at that meeting?If you reread prior posts a bit more carefully (particularly #8), you will see that I have not asserted that the postponement effectively became a general order for the December meeting (and I don't think anyone else did, either).More importantly, if -- despite the purported (invalid) postponement from the September to the December meeting-- a member sought at the October meeting to renew the motion, wouldn't that be in order?As best I can determine, nobody has claimed otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnonymousBlue Posted November 3, 2012 at 05:34 PM Report Share Posted November 3, 2012 at 05:34 PM If you reread prior posts a bit more carefully (particularly #8), you will see that I have not asserted that the postponement effectively became a general order for the December meeting (and I don't think anyone else did, either).Glad to hear it. I see that posts 7 and 8 treat it as a general order for the October meeting that comes over to the November meeting as one not reached at the October meeting, rather than as a general order for the November meeting as such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.