Using a special rule of order to get around 2/3rds for Previous Question

[Sean Hunt]

Suppose that there is a highly controversial meeting where every member is present and there is a slight majority in favour of a motion, but not two thirds. As a result, they cannot adopt the Previous Question. As the members opposed continue to debate, the other members are frustrated, and one comes up with a clever plan. He moves to Lay on the Table the pending question, and this is agreed to. He then moves to adopt a special rule of order allow the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote. With every member present, there is a majority of the members in favour, and the rule is adopted without notice. Afterwards, the assembly agrees to Take From the Table the original motion, and proceeds to adopt the Previous Question and then the original motion.

Is this in order?

If not, why? If so, why is the majority allowed to circumvent an FPPL (that limitation of debate requires a 2/3 vote) in this fashion?

If no timely Point of Order is raised, is the decision a continuing violation or not?

Do any answers change if, instead of allowing the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote, the members adopted (still by special rule of order) another limit to debate, such as allowing only 10 speeches on each motion, or allowing each member to speak only once, that precluded debate from resuming on the main motion because all debate has been exhausted under the new rule?

EDIT: Updated the topic to refer to the Previous Question, not Suspend the Rules, since that is what is discussed here.

[George Mervosh]

Suppose that there is a highly controversial meeting where every member is present and there is a slight majority in favour of a motion, but not two thirds. As a result, they cannot adopt the Previous Question. As the members opposed continue to debate, the other members are frustrated, and one comes up with a clever plan. He moves to Lay on the Table the pending question, and this is agreed to. He then moves to adopt a special rule of order allow the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote. With every member present, there is a majority of the members in favour, and the rule is adopted without notice. Afterwards, the assembly agrees to Take From the Table the original motion, and proceeds to adopt the Previous Question and then the original motion.

Is this in order?

If not, why? If so, why is the majority allowed to circumvent an FPPL (that limitation of debate requires a 2/3 vote) in this fashion?

If no timely Point of Order is raised, is the decision a continuing violation or not?

Do any answers change if, instead of allowing the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote, the members adopted (still by special rule of order) another limit to debate, such as allowing only 10 speeches on each motion, or allowing each member to speak only once, that precluded debate from resuming on the main motion because all debate has been exhausted under the new rule?

It's not a majority circumventing anything, rather it's a majority of the entire membership validly adopting a special rule of order without notice. RONR (11th ed.), p. 17, ll. 28-31. Also, a plain vanilla 2/3 vote requirement to order the previous question (or adopt other motions requiring a 2/3 vote) is not a "fppl", since the violation of that rule (which is all too common as noted in the FAQ) does not result in any continuing breaches (see OI 2006-18).

[Guest Edgar]

He then moves to adopt a special rule of order allow the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote.

But wouldn't the adoption of the special rule (which seems to me like a suspension of the rules) itself require a two-thirds vote?

[George Mervosh]

But wouldn't the adoption of the special rule (which seems to me like a suspension of the rules) itself require a two-thirds vote?

No. The adoption of a special rule of order requires previous notice and a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. RONR (11th ed.), p. 17, ll. 28-31 The latter adopted the special rule of order according to Sean's facts.

[Dan Honemann]

Suppose that there is a highly controversial meeting where every member is present and there is a slight majority in favour of a motion, but not two thirds. As a result, they cannot adopt the Previous Question. As the members opposed continue to debate, the other members are frustrated, and one comes up with a clever plan. He moves to Lay on the Table the pending question, and this is agreed to. He then moves to adopt a special rule of order allow the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote. With every member present, there is a majority of the members in favour, and the rule is adopted without notice. Afterwards, the assembly agrees to Take From the Table the original motion, and proceeds to adopt the Previous Question and then the original motion.

Is this in order?

If not, why? If so, why is the majority allowed to circumvent an FPPL (that limitation of debate requires a 2/3 vote) in this fashion?

If no timely Point of Order is raised, is the decision a continuing violation or not?

Do any answers change if, instead of allowing the Previous Question to be adopted by majority vote, the members adopted (still by special rule of order) another limit to debate, such as allowing only 10 speeches on each motion, or allowing each member to speak only once, that precluded debate from resuming on the main motion because all debate has been exhausted under the new rule?

I'll admit that the Index (on p. 688, under "fundamental principals of parliamentary law") is a bit misleading. The text itself (on p. 216), uses the word "basic", not "fundamental", and there is a difference.

[Sean Hunt]

Follow up: If this is the case, why can't a majority of the membership adopt the Previous Question, since they can do so in more time but no more productivity anyways (including, if they really wanted, removing the rule just adopted once it has been used)?

[Dan Honemann]

Follow up: If this is the case, why can't a majority of the membership adopt the Previous Question, since they can do so in more time but no more productivity anyways (including, if they really wanted, removing the rule just adopted once it has been used)?

Well, the first thing we need to do is understand what the rules are, which includes understanding that, in your scenario, the motion to Lay on the Table was rather obviously out of order when it was made.

[Sean Hunt]

Well, the first thing we need to do is understand what the rules are, which includes understanding that, in your scenario, the motion to Lay on the Table was rather obviously out of order when it was made.

Why is that?

[Dan Honemann]

Why is that?

I think that, in your statement of the facts, the motion is being made for a purpose other than the one stated in the first sentence of Section.17.

[Sean Hunt]

I think that, in your statement of the facts, the motion is being made for a purpose other than the one stated in the first sentence of Section.17.

With respect, I would disagree, since the majority believes that there is "something else which needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question is resumed". While this does seem to violate the principle that the motion cannot be used to suppress debate, I don't think that is an obvious failure in that it is attempting to do so only indirectly.

If this is the only objection, one could change the scenario to having a member, before a motion is introduced, move to amend the special rules of order so as to limit debate on the motion to be introduced, a goal which could be normally be less circuitously accomplished with the incidental main motion to Limit Debate, but only if a larger portion of the members were in favour of the limitation.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/30/2012 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt said:

With respect, I would disagree, since the majority believes that there is "something else which needs to be addressed before consideration of the pending question is resumed". While this does seem to violate the principle that the motion cannot be used to suppress debate, I don't think that is an obvious failure in that it is attempting to do so only indirectly.

If this is the only objection, one could change the scenario to having a member, before a motion is introduced, move to amend the special rules of order so as to limit debate on the motion to be introduced, a goal which could be normally be less circuitously accomplished with the incidental main motion to Limit Debate, but only if a larger portion of the members were in favour of the limitation.

Yes, it may be in order, before a motion is introduced, to move to adopt a special rule of order so as to limit debate on the motion to be introduced.

Regarding the original post, however, it should be understood that it is not proper to move to lay a pending motion on the table in order (either directly or indirectly) to enable the assembly to limit or close debate on it by less than a two-thirds vote, and it should also be understood that limitations on debate do not circumvent any fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

[J. J.]

This process has been described in the literature, some years ago, and described as the "suspension paradox," though it has an eponymous name as well. See:

The Suspension Paradox, National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 1998. I believe it has been reprinted as well.

[Sean Hunt]

This process has been described in the literature, some years ago, and described as the "suspension paradox," though it has an eponymous name as well. See:

The Suspension Paradox, National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 1998. I believe it has been reprinted as well.

Sadly, I have no clue how to access back (or indeed, current) issues of National Parliamentarian.

[J. J.]

Sadly, I have no clue how to access back (or indeed, current) issues of National Parliamentarian.

It was reprinted in one of their publications. You might also be able to get a copy from NAP or from the author. It basically supports your premise. It has been described and even named by a few folks, though I am amused by the eponymous title (that I don't use).

[J. J.]

Regarding the original post, however, it should be understood that it is not proper to move to lay a pending motion on the table in order (either directly or indirectly) to enable the assembly to limit or close debate on it by less than a two-thirds vote, and it should also be understood that limitations on debate do not circumvent any fundamental principal of parliamentary law.

I disagree that this is what is happening procedurally. I believe that the assembly wished to lay the the pending question on the table in order to consider the adoption of a special rule.

If the majority regards that consideration of the special rule (any special rule) to be of "immediate urgency," or as "something that needs to be address before consideration of the pending question is resumed," I think that the motion to lay the question on the table would be in order. That would be true even if the ultimate result would be to make it easier to close debate on the "tabled question," when it becomes pending again.

[Dan Honemann]

I disagree that this is what is happening procedurally. I believe that the assembly wished to lay the the pending question on the table in order to consider the adoption of a special rule.

If the majority regards that consideration of the special rule (any special rule) to be of "immediate urgency," or as "something that needs to be address before consideration of the pending question is resumed," I think that the motion to lay the question on the table would be in order. That would be true even if the ultimate result would be to make it easier to close debate on the "tabled question," when it becomes pending again.

Well, then, we disagree.

In the scenario described in the initial post, the motion to Lay on the Table was clearly out of order. The majority simply wanted to be able to close debate on the pending motion, and it was adoption of the pending motion itself that they regarded as being of such great urgency.

As used on page 209 (ll. 27-27), "something else" is referring to another question of substance, not to procedural matters.

[J. J.]

Well, then, we disagree.

In the scenario described in the initial post, the motion to Lay on the Table was clearly out of order. The majority simply wanted to be able to close debate on the pending motion, and it was adoption of the pending motion itself that they regarded as being of such great urgency.

As used on page 209 (ll. 27-27), "something else" is referring to another question of substance, not to procedural matters.

I would call the adoption of a special rule a substantive matter. I would, for example, rule this motion out of order if made at a special meeting, if this proposed rule was not included in the notice (p. 93, l. 3 ff.)..

If there was an agenda adopted that included the proposed special rule, I would not hesitate to permit this motion, or subsequent main motions to laid on the table, individually, to reach the proposed rule (p. 363, ll. 28-31). I would note that a motion to Postpone could also be used.

Ultimately, it would be up to the majority to determine if this constitutes "something else of immediate urgency."

[Dan Honemann]

I would call the adoption of a special rule a substantive matter. I would, for example, rule this motion out of order if made at a special meeting, if this proposed rule was not included in the notice (p. 93, l. 3 ff.)..

If there was an agenda adopted that included the proposed special rule, I would not hesitate to permit this motion, or subsequent main motions to laid on the table, individually, to reach the proposed rule (p. 363, ll. 28-31). I would note that a motion to Postpone could also be used.

Ultimately, it would be up to the majority to determine if this constitutes "something else of immediate urgency."

My last sentence in post #16 is dicta, and you may ignore it if you like (perhaps you should). It is too broadly stated.

The point I am trying to make in this thread is that it is not proper, at least in my opinion, to move to lay a pending motion on the table if the reason for doing so is to enable the assembly (even indirectly) to limit or close debate on it by less than a two-thirds vote.

By the way, the scenario described in post #1 apparently assumes that the meeting has already reached the point of taking up new business. If not, absent a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote, quite a lot of business (perhaps entire classes of business) may need to be disposed of before the member who came up with this clever plan will be able to move the adoption of his special rule of order.

[alanh49]

Isn't the adoption of a special rule of order a debatable motion and therefore you would need a 2/3 vote to close debate on it.

[Dan Honemann]

Isn't the adoption of a special rule of order a debatable motion and therefore you would need a 2/3 vote to close debate on it.

Yes.

[J. J.]

Yes.

They might run out of things to say. Seriously, there might be a different dynamic in dealing with the rule as opposed to motion.

[George Mervosh]

I would call the adoption of a special rule a substantive matter. I would, for example, rule this motion out of order if made at a special meeting, if this proposed rule was not included in the notice (p. 93, l. 3 ff.)..

Perhaps we shouldn't hijack Sean's thread to argue over this but it seems to me this falls under "...or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting." RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, ll. 5-8 emphasis added. A special rule of order which modifies the rules of debate or procedural rules for the adoption of a motion such as the previous question, for the special meeting, certainly seems to fit this rule to a tee, in my opinion.

[Sean Hunt]

Perhaps we shouldn't hijack Sean's thread to argue over this but it seems to me this falls under "...or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting." RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, ll. 5-8 emphasis added. A special rule of order which modifies the rules of debate or procedural rules for the adoption of a motion such as the previous question, for the special meeting, certainly seems to fit this rule to a tee, in my opinion.

This certainly seems like an interesting topic, but I'd appreciate if it could be in a different thread.

[George Mervosh]

This certainly seems like an interesting topic, but I'd appreciate if it could be in a different thread.

Agreed. NP