J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:25 AM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:25 AM Is there any problem with using an incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the session to prohibit debate on all debatable motions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 11:50 AM Is there any problem with using an incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the session to prohibit debate on all debatable motions?Well, the first problem you seem to be having with it is framing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:08 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:08 PM Well, the first problem you seem to be having with it is framing it. Because it's a special rule of order he's trying to adopt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:26 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:26 PM Because it's a special rule of order he's trying to adopt?No, I don't think it is a special rule of order that J.J. has in mind, I think it's the equivalent of a convention standing rule (the kind of rule referred to on p. 620, ll. 6-9). The proposal would be to adopt a rule, to be effective throughout the duration of the session, that all motions, of whatever sort, shall be undebatable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:43 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:43 PM The proposal would be to adopt a rule, to be effective throughout the duration of the session, that all motions, of whatever sort, shall be undebatable.It may just be semantics but wouldn't it be preferable to phrase the motion to, for example, "prohibit debate on any and all motions" rather than to identify all motions as "undebatable"? In other words, an active rather than passive phrasing of the motion.3638ag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:52 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 02:52 PM Perhaps this framing would better express it.With nothing pending, would the following incidental main motion be in order: "I move that the rules be suspended for the remainder of the session to prohibit debate on all motions."Now, I am aware that the motion, if in order, would:A. Requires a 2/3 vote.B. Would be debatable (and amendable).In looking at Edgar's answer, I would agree that the word "debatable" could be struck.I am asking if such a motion could be adopted. You may assume that at least two thirds of the members voting will vote in favor of it. They feel that they don't need to debate any issue coming up.I'm not discussing the wisdom of such a motion, only if it may be legitimately adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:21 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:21 PM No, I don't think it is a special rule of order that J.J. has in mind, I think it's the equivalent of a convention standing rule (the kind of rule referred to on p. 620, ll. 6-9). The proposal would be to adopt a rule, to be effective throughout the duration of the session, that all motions, of whatever sort, shall be undebatable.Would this share the convention standing rule's characteristic of being able to be suspended by a majority vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:24 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:24 PM Just for the record, this would not necessarily be a convention. I was actually thinking about a group that meets monthly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:26 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:26 PM Would this share the convention standing rule's characteristic of being able to be suspended by a majority vote?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:28 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:28 PM Just for the record, this would necessarily be a convention. I was actually thinking about a group that meets monthly.Didn't you mean to add "n't"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:32 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:32 PM As a folow up, since you mentioned framing, would this framing be in order:"I move that there no debate on any motion during this session."This would be an incidental main motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate. It would be debatable as such and would require a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:32 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:32 PM With nothing pending, would the following incidental main motion be in order: "I move that the rules be suspended for the remainder of the session to prohibit debate on all motions."I do not think that this is the proper way to accomplish what you have in mind. As I indicated, I think the proper way to do it is by the adoption of a rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:32 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:32 PM Didn't you mean to add "n't"?Yes, I'll edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:33 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:33 PM As a folow up, since you mentioned framing, would this framing be in order:"I move that there no debate on any motion during this session."This would be an incidental main motion to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate. It would be debatable as such and would require a 2/3 vote.No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:36 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:36 PM Yes.If motion #31 on tinted page 33 is adopted, can it be suspended by a majority vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:39 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:39 PM Just for the record, this would necessarily be a convention. I was actually thinking about a group that meets monthly.I do not think that this is the proper way to accomplish what you have in mind. As I indicated, I think the proper way to do it is by the adoption of a rule.Dan, the assembly just wants to do this for this session; they specifically do not want it for the next session. They wish to conduct business, but, for whatever reason, they just do not want debate at this particular meeting.If there was felt to be need, they could except for "items of new business." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:42 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:42 PM If motion #31 on tinted page 33 is adopted, can it be suspended by a majority vote?No, I don't think so (although I think I need to think more about it).PLEASE SEE POST #31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:44 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:44 PM Dan, the assembly just wants to do this for this session; they specifically do not want it for the next session. They wish to conduct business, but, for whatever reason, they just do not want debate at this particular meeting.All of my responses were made with the understanding that this was the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:59 PM Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 03:59 PM Okay, if the motion is made, what would be the ground for ruling it out of order? I don't see this as an absentee rights issue, because it would not tie the hands of a future session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:07 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:07 PM Okay, if the motion is made, what would be the ground for ruling it out of order? I don't see this as an absentee rights issue, because it would not tie the hands of a future session.In view of the fact that a subsidiary motion to limit debate cannot impose an immediate closing of debate, it seems clear to me that an incidental main motion to limit debate cannot prohibit debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:22 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:22 PM No, I don't think so (although I think I need to think more about it).Would it be your thought that the adoption of motion #31 creates an order, as opposed to a rule, and is therefore not subject to suspension? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:34 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:34 PM Would it be your thought that the adoption of motion #31 creates an order, as opposed to a rule, and is therefore not subject to suspension?I think I've run out of thoughts, which is probably the result of trying to think about a deliberative assembly agreeing to prohibit all deliberation. PLEASE SEE POST #31. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:47 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:47 PM I think I've run out of thoughts . . .And I'm still creeped out by J.J.'s new image . . . and the fact that it hasn't seemed to help his ongoing struggle with the dreaded "not" hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:53 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 04:53 PM And I'm still creeped out by J.J.'s new image . . . Yes, yeah, yep, unless this is the result of some severe plastic surgery, in which case I'm respectfully tolerant, with all the necessary appearances of political correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 8, 2013 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted January 8, 2013 at 05:02 PM If motion #31 on tinted page 33 is adopted, can it be suspended by a majority vote?No, I don't think so (although I think I need to think more about it).I think the answer is yes. To get this suspension started, a motion would be made in the form, "I move to reconsider the vote on the motion limiting debate to five minutes for each member." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.