Why is the motion to Postpone Indefinitely not dilatory?

[Sean Hunt]

I don't refer to the use of the motion to kill the question without voting, which is precisely why it exists, but rather to simply get more debate time. Surely this use of the motion is a waste of time and a subversion of the notion that two-thirds are required to extend debate, yet at the same time, this is clearly expressed in RONR as being one of the uses of the motion.

[Dan Honemann]

I don't refer to the use of the motion to kill the question without voting, which is precisely why it exists, but rather to simply get more debate time. Surely this use of the motion is a waste of time and a subversion of the notion that two-thirds are required to extend debate, yet at the same time, this is clearly expressed in RONR as being one of the uses of the motion.

Technically, the question before the assembly is a different question.

[J. J.]

Well, in strict terms of debate, extending debate would be "dilatory" as well.

Postpone Indefinitely serves an additional purpose.

[Gary c Tesser]

Technically, the question before the assembly is a different question.

Is that an explanation of why the subversion is allowed?

[George Mervosh]

Is that an explanation of why the subversion is allowed?

If a motion to amend, commit or postpone were made and before the assembly instead, would you object to a member speaking further on these motions if they exhausted their right to debate the main motion itself?

RONR also notes, that a motion like postpone indefinitely, which will kill the main motion for the duration of the session “necessarily involves debate of the main question”, unlike the other debatable subsidiary motions.

The difference with PI is the scope of what you can talk about, not that your right to debate it is continued.

[Dan Honemann]

Is that an explanation of why the subversion is allowed?

It's an explanation of why there is no subversion (I'm guessing at what is meant by the use of the word in this context).

Edited December 11, 2012 at 06:50 PM by Dan Honemann
To add the parenthetical comment.

[Sean Hunt]

The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is indeed a different question, but debate is allowed on the main question, unlike with other subsidiary motions.

It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions ... merely to obstruct business.

For instance, if a member repeatedly made amendments to a motion that, despite presenting different questions, clearly were introduced solely to prevent the main motion from coming to a vote, the chair should, as I understand it, rule such motions to be dilatory and out of order---such as an incident in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario where, in opposition to a bill to amalgamate several municipalities into one, the opposition introduced an amendment for each street in any of the affected municipalities to the effect that the residents of that street would receive a public consultation on the matter (sadly, they were ruled in order and the Legislative Assembly took several days to dispose of all the amendments).

So my question is why this use of Postpone Indefinitely is explicitly a legitimate use of the motion. The notion that it presents a different question is not necessarily sufficient, given the other circumstances where the chair can rule a motion to be dilatory.

[Dan Honemann]

The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is indeed a different question, but debate is allowed on the main question, unlike with other subsidiary motions.

For instance, if a member repeatedly made amendments to a motion that, despite presenting different questions, clearly were introduced solely to prevent the main motion from coming to a vote, the chair should, as I understand it, rule such motions to be dilatory and out of order---such as an incident in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario where, in opposition to a bill to amalgamate several municipalities into one, the opposition introduced an amendment for each street in any of the affected municipalities to the effect that the residents of that street would receive a public consultation on the matter (sadly, they were ruled in order and the Legislative Assembly took several days to dispose of all the amendments).

So my question is why this use of Postpone Indefinitely is explicitly a legitimate use of the motion. The notion that it presents a different question is not necessarily sufficient, given the other circumstances where the chair can rule a motion to be dilatory.

To be precise, it isn't "explicitly a legitimate use of the motion", and it is also incorrect to say, as in post #1, that “to simply get more debate time … is clearly expressed in RONR as being one of the uses of the motion.”

RONR merely observes (on p. 128) that the making of this motion "enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further because, as explained under Standard Characteristic 5, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, though technically a new question, necessarily involves debate of the main question."

[George Mervosh]

So my question is why this use of Postpone Indefinitely is explicitly a legitimate use of the motion. The notion that it presents a different question is not necessarily sufficient, given the other circumstances where the chair can rule a motion to be dilatory.

As Dan noted, it's not a legitimate use, but it is the effect of the motion.

The 4th Edition specifically refers to it as the effect. "The Effect of making this motion is to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question, to speak again, as technically, the question before the assembly is different, while, as far as the subject of discussion is concerned, there is no difference caused by changing the question from adopting to rejecting the measure, because the merits of the main question are open to debate in either case."

[Guest Edgar]

The 4th Edition specifically refers to it as the effect.

As does the 6th ("75th Anniversary") Edition, in exactly the same language, on p.153.

(I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion but I'm always glad for an excuse to dust off the ol' 6th.)

[George Mervosh]

As does the 6th ("75th Anniversary") Edition, in exactly the same language, on p.153.

(I'm not sure what this adds to the discussion but I'm always glad for an excuse to dust off the ol' 6th.)

Use/Purpose /=/ Effect

[Sean Hunt]

So the chair should disallow the motion if it is obviously being moved solely to gain more speaking time?

[George Mervosh]

So the chair should disallow the motion if it is obviously being moved solely to gain more speaking time?

No and how would you know? If it's in order at the time in the precedence of motions, it's in order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

As Dan noted, it's not a legitimate use, but it is the effect of the motion.

The 4th Edition specifically refers to it as the effect. "The Effect of making this motion is to enable members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question, to speak again, as technically, the question before the assembly is different, while, as far as the subject of discussion is concerned, there is no difference caused by changing the question from adopting to rejecting the measure, because the merits of the main question are open to debate in either case."

I don't know how much should be read into this heading of the word "Effect." The General needed to have something to include in each paragraph if he wanted to have an "Effect" paragraph following an "Object" paragraph.

Edited December 12, 2012 at 02:55 AM by Shmuel Gerber

[Josh Martin]

So the chair should disallow the motion if it is obviously being moved solely to gain more speaking time?

Mr. Hunt, can you please explain a scenario where it would be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely was being moved solely to gain more speaking time? I'm having a difficult time imagining one.

[Sean Hunt]

Mr. Hunt, can you please explain a scenario where it would be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely was being moved solely to gain more speaking time? I'm having a difficult time imagining one.

Perhaps after the member moving it has made a number of motions which have already ruled to have been dilatory, such as repeated points of order. As a chair, if the member told me he was moving it legitimately, I would take that at face value, and accept the motion, but if a member is trying to obstruct business, he might at least be honest about it, in which case I would probably rule it out of order.

[Josh Martin]

Perhaps after the member moving it has made a number of motions which have already ruled to have been dilatory, such as repeated points of order. As a chair, if the member told me he was moving it legitimately, I would take that at face value, and accept the motion, but if a member is trying to obstruct business, he might at least be honest about it, in which case I would probably rule it out of order.

Well, I suppose I'll concede that in that unusual instance it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order, but members generally do not explicitly tell the chair why they are making the motion, so it seems we are in agreement that generally speaking, it will not be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is being made solely to extend debate?

[Sean Hunt]

Well, I suppose I'll concede that in that unusual instance it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order, but members generally do not explicitly tell the chair why they are making the motion, so it seems we are in agreement that generally speaking, it will not be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is being made solely to extend debate?

After this discussion, I'll agree. Thanks to everyone.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Perhaps after the member moving it has made a number of motions which have already ruled to have been dilatory, such as repeated points of order. As a chair, if the member told me he was moving it legitimately, I would take that at face value, and accept the motion, but if a member is trying to obstruct business, he might at least be honest about it, in which case I would probably rule it out of order.

Well, I suppose I'll concede that in that unusual instance it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order, but members generally do not explicitly tell the chair why they are making the motion, so it seems we are in agreement that generally speaking, it will not be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is being made solely to extend debate?

I wouldn't concede that. First of all, it's not much of a concession to say that it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order.

Second, this is a straw-man argument. If the member is using obstructive tactics, such as constantly making points of order or offering multiple frivolous amendments, then the chair can refuse to entertain further motions from the member on those grounds alone.

So, forgetting about the extraneous question of tactics that are actually dilatory, how could seeking the floor to speak in debate, while sticking to all the rules (germaneness, length and number of speeches, etc.) ever considered to be obstructing business? The business of a deliberative assembly is to deliberate (and then, of course, to decide).

Suppose a member rises to speak a second time in debate, and it is "obvious" that this second speech is being made solely because the member wishes to "extend the debate". It wouldn't matter what the member had in mind, because what he is doing is perfectly legitimate. I think the same must be said here (and George M. already said it, much more concisely).

[Tim Wynn]

The tinted pages of RONR list 86 motions which may be dilatory based on the specifics affecting any given situation. The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is not in any way immune to what is said in section 39.

If the real question is as follows: Why is the dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely considered not dilatory? The answer, logically, is that it isn't.

[Josh Martin]

The tinted pages of RONR list 86 motions which may be dilatory based on the specifics affecting any given situation. The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is not in any way

immune to what is said in section 39.

If the real question is as follows: Why is the dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely considered not dilatory? The answer, logically, is that it isn't.

Fair enough, but can you illustrate a realistic situation involving the "dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely" - preferably a situation in which the motion is so obviously dilatory that the chair should rule it out of order? It may be true that any motion could theoretically be dilatory in the right set of circumstances, but for some motions those circumstances will rarely (if ever) arise.

[Dan Honemann]

Let’s just say that RONR, by observing (on p. 128, ll. 19-24) that the making of a motion to Postpone Indefinitely “enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further”, neither endorses nor condemns its use for this purpose.

[Rev Ed]

Fair enough, but can you illustrate a realistic situation involving the "dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely" - preferably a situation in which the motion is so obviously dilatory that the chair should rule it out of order? It may be true that any motion could theoretically be dilatory in the right set of circumstances, but for some motions those circumstances will rarely (if ever) arise.

The only time I can think of is if it becomes obvious that a particular member consistently uses his right to make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely to have 'extra' debate opportunities. Of course, the membership would have to back up the Chairman even the Chairman rules the motion to postpone as being dilatory. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we say, it is up to the membership to decide how its meetings operate.

[Josh Martin]

The only time I can think of is if it becomes obvious that a particular member consistently uses his right to make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely to have 'extra' debate opportunities.

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is indeed "obvious" that the member is using the motion solely for this purpose (although I find such a situation unlikely). I'm not sure there's any real harm here. If it's only a handful of members, then the Previous Question will sort this mess right out. If a determined minority of one-third or greater greater than one-third is involved, keep in mind that even without the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, each member can speak twice per motion per day for up to ten minutes each time. In an assembly of any appreciable size, a determined minority of one-third or greater greater than one-third could keep the assembly busy for a very long time even without Postpone Indefinitely. If tactics like this are likely to be a problem, then the assembly is going to need special rules of order to set lower limits on debate. If tactics like this aren't likely to be a problem, then Postpone Indefinitely won't be an issue.

The section on dilatory motions is clearly written with small groups of troublemakers in mind, since it focuses on two or three members bringing business to a standstill. It's not designed to address large-scale gridlock.

Of course, the membership would have to back up the Chairman even the Chairman rules the motion to postpone as being dilatory.

Personally, I'm more fearful of the majority cutting off the motion to Postpone Indefinitely simply to save time than a member using it simply to gain more debate time.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we say, it is up to the membership to decide how its meetings operate.

Sure, but if that's different from what is provided by RONR they should so so by adopting appropriate special rules of order.

EDIT: Edited to correctly reflect the size of the minority required to block the Previous Question.

Edited December 29, 2012 at 12:37 AM by Josh Martin

[Rev Ed]

True - but my point was sometimes there is one person who just wants to use the system to his/her advantage - but yes special rules of order can deal with these types of issues.