Compound Motion

[GregoryHofer]

Is a compound motion out of order or improper?

Can anyone tell me on what page of RONR is compound motions addressed?

[jstackpo]

Not by that name, anywhere. Could you amplify a bit, perhaps with an example, of what you mean, please.

Perhaps you mean "in gros" -- p. 523

[Guest Edgar]

Section 27, "Division of a Question", might also be helpful.

[GregoryHofer]

JD,

Here's an example,

"I move to vote by secret ballot on the motion to hire a Parliamentarian"

[Gary c Tesser]

JD,

Here's an example,

'I move to vote by secret ballot on the motion to hire a Parliamentarian'

What's the compound?

[David A Foulkes]

What's the compound?

I took it to be a motion to hire a parliamentarian coupled with a motion on the method of voting (ballot, not voice), assuming there wasn't already a motion on the floor to hire a parliamentarian. Two motions for the price of one. Perhaps Greg will return to clarify. It might have been worded "I move to hire a Parliamentarian and to take the vote by secret ballot".

[Gary c Tesser]

I took it to be a motion to hire a parliamentarian coupled with a motion on the method of voting (ballot, not voice), assuming there wasn't already a motion on the floor to hire a parliamentarian. Two motions for the price of one. Perhaps Greg will return to clarify. It might have been worded 'I move to hire a Parliamentarian and to take the vote by secret ballot'.

Aha. So what page will you tell him?

[David A Foulkes]

Aha. So what page will you tell him?

Well, I'm not saying it's a good example to work with, but I'd be inclined to take a read of p. 262 ll. 13-17, and p. 274 l. 31ff for a start. I'd be happier to work with a different "compound motion."

[Gary c Tesser]

Well, I'm not saying it's a good example to work with, but I'd be inclined to take a read of p. 262 ll. 13-17, and p. 274 l. 31ff for a start. I'd be happier to work with a different 'compound motion.'

It made me a little uncomfortable, too, which is why I passed the buck. P. 283, lines 12 - 16, on methods of voting, may help here, especially "otherwise, it is an incidental main motion." But I'm still uneasy, and I doubt it's the usual morning fantods this time.

[Gary Novosielski]

JD,

Here's an example,

"I move to vote by secret ballot on the motion to hire a Parliamentarian"

I don't see why that's "compound". It's just a motion related to the method of voting (see § 30). I'm presuming that there actually is a motion pending to hire a parliamentarian.

(and "secret" ballot is somewhat redundant)

[Josh Martin]

"I move to vote by secret ballot on the motion to hire a Parliamentarian"

That type of compound motion is not in order, since it combines two different types of motions. More importantly, it's not possible to vote on those motions together - whether a secret ballot shall be taken needs to be determined before the vote can be taken on whether to hire a parliamentarian.

The member should move "to hire a parliamentarian," and then move that the vote shall be taken by secret ballot. The latter motion requires a majority vote for adoption and is not debatable.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Why do I have a sense of déjà vu about this question?

[Gary c Tesser]

That type of compound motion is not in order, since it combines two different types of motions.

That somewhat bothered me, but I did a little riffling but failed to dig out a citation. Someone have one, please?

More importantly, it's not possible to vote on those motions together - whether a secret ballot shall be taken needs to be determined before the vote can be taken on whether to hire a parliamentarian.

Ah! The crux. Thanks.

The member should move 'to hire a parliamentarian,' and then move that the vote shall be taken by secret ballot. The latter motion requires a majority vote for adoption and is not debatable.

[GregoryHofer]

I'm gathering based on all of your responses I should have made to separate motions.

I move to hire a Parliamentarian and I move to vote by secret ballot in the motion to hire a Parliamentarian.

[Josh Martin]

I'm presuming that there actually is a motion pending to hire a parliamentarian.

It appears that presumption was not correct.

I'm gathering based on all of your responses I should have made to separate motions.

I move to hire a Parliamentarian and I move to vote by secret ballot in the motion to hire a Parliamentarian.

Yes... although since the motion to hire a parliamentarian will then be pending, you can just say "I move that the vote be taken by ballot," since it is assumed you are referring to the pending motion.

[George Mervosh]

Why do I have a sense of déjà vu about this question?

Have you figured it out yet?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Have you figured it out yet?

I haven't tried. I thought for sure one of the search wizards who hang out here would discover that someone, maybe even the same someone, had already asked this exact question.

[Gary c Tesser]

I haven't tried. I thought for sure one of the search wizards who hang out here would discover that someone, maybe even the same someone, had already asked this exact question.

Yes, you have seen it before, but probably not from OP GregoryHofer, a member here only half a year (though that's not proof of anything). I remember distinctly the impossibility Mr Martin explains in Post #11 here having been made the basic point. I'm pretty sure Bruce Lages was in on the discussion, likely instrumental. I'd ask him but his picture shows he's out on some bay somewheres.

[Bruce Lages]

I'm flattered that anyone thinks that I may have actually been instrumental in any of the threads I have responded in, but I'm really drawing a blank on any previous posting (with or without a contribution from me) dealing with this exact issue. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if this question was raised previously.