Distinction between suspension and request for a privilege

[Sean Hunt]

I don't have any specific scenarios that come to mind, but when should a request be propertly interpreted as a request to Suspend the Rules and when should it be seen as something that falls within the purview of a Request for Any Other Privilege? It seems that some requests are in the nature of applying to rules of order, though the ones that I can think of immediately are explicitly enumerated and thus not truly exceptions.

[Josh Martin]

I don't have any specific scenarios that come to mind, but when should a request be propertly interpreted as a request to Suspend the Rules and when should it be seen as something that falls within the purview of a Request for Any Other Privilege?

 

It should be interpreted as a motion to Suspend the Rules if it suspends the rules. In other cases, it might be a Request for Any Other Privilege or a question of privilege (and I think that might be the murkier distinction).

 

It seems that some requests are in the nature of applying to rules of order, though the ones that I can think of immediately are explicitly enumerated and thus not truly exceptions.

 

Exactly right.

[George Mervosh]

 It seems that some requests are in the nature of applying to rules of order, though the ones that I can think of immediately are explicitly enumerated and thus not truly exceptions.

 

One of the more common examples of what I view as a request for any other privilege, we see here. It is a request from a member to have their vote recorded in the minutes, when no roll call vote was taken. Usually it's done to memorialize their opposition to whatever it is the assembly just adopted.  Is this a legitimate example of what a request would be in lieu of a motion to suspend the rules?  I think so.  What do you think?

[J. J.]

One of the more common examples of what I view as a request for any other privilege, we see here. It is a request from a member to have their vote recorded in the minutes, when no roll call vote was taken. Usually it's done to memorialize their opposition to whatever it is the assembly just adopted.  Is this a legitimate example of what a request would be in lieu of a motion to suspend the rules?  I think so.  What do you think?

 

 

I would think so. 

 

One example to permit a member to speak on a topic without a motion being pending.  I think the rules could be suspended to permit it. 

[George Mervosh]

I would think so. 

 

One example to permit a member to speak on a topic without a motion being pending.  I think the rules could be suspended to permit it. 

 

Sure, but the book lists this specifically under a Request for Any Other Privilege "When a member desires to make a request not covered by one of the four types explained above—as, for example, a request to address remarks or make a presentation while no motion is pending."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 299.  Wouldn't this just take a majoirty vote? (p. 293, #7)

[J. J.]

Sure, but the book lists this specifically under a Request for Any Other Privilege "When a member desires to make a request not covered by one of the four types explained above—as, for example, a request to address remarks or make a presentation while no motion is pending."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 299.  Wouldn't this just take a majoirty vote? (p. 293, #7)

 

I was thing along the lines of discussing an issue without a motion. 

 

By the same token, would you really need a 2/3 vote to order something to be placed in the minutes?

[George Mervosh]

By the same token, would you really need a 2/3 vote to order something to be placed in the minutes?

 

No, and I hope I didn't suggest otherwise.

[DrEntropy]

An example that I ran into in another thread: Request to speak against a motion you made.   Josh convinced me that this requires suspending the rules, because it is not explicitly exempted as a case where a mere request would work. 

[Sean Hunt]

Another one that had come up in discussions regarding some potential rules for an assembly I'm a part of is that of a rule banning the use of computers at a meeting. Such a rule is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, since it relates to conduct during a meeting, yet it seems to me that it should really only require a majority to waive on a case-by-case basis, because it is not a procedural rule.

[Gary c Tesser]

Another one that had come up in discussions regarding some potential rules for an assembly I'm a part of is that of a rule banning the use of computers at a meeting. Such a rule is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, since it relates to conduct during a meeting, yet it seems to me that it should really only require a majority to waive on a case-by-case basis, because it is not a procedural rule.

It doesn't relate to the transaction of business, so I don't see it as a rule of order, nature or real, unless maybe this is a prescription for what the secretary can use.

[Josh Martin]

Another one that had come up in discussions regarding some potential rules for an assembly I'm a part of is that of a rule banning the use of computers at a meeting. Such a rule is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, since it relates to conduct during a meeting, yet it seems to me that it should really only require a majority to waive on a case-by-case basis, because it is not a procedural rule.

 

A rule banning the use of computers at a meeting is a standing rule. The motion to Suspend the Rules is still the appropriate tool, but a majority vote is sufficient.