Recess definition

[mikalac]

Robert has two forms of recess:

 

Privileged "while another question is pending"

Main "when no question is pending"

 

However, when I searched the Internet, the authors substitute the word "business" for "question":

 

Privileged "while business is pending"

Main "when no business is pending"

 

I don't cosider "business" to be equivalent to "question". For example, when votes for directors are being counted, that is " business", but no "question" (motion) is pending.

 

In the past, when the votes were counted during an annual owner meeting, the chair called a "recess" to do Board business. To me, that was some kind of a violation because only the owners can allow non-member business to be done during an owner meeting. I think that the proper procedure would be for any member (presumably a Board member other than the chair) to move that a recess be taken for (say) 20 minutes so that the Board may conduct business. That would require a second, would be non-debatable, and then voted upon. However, there is no question pending, so maybe the chair has the right to do this without owner permisison.

 

Is the chair's recess a violation or not?

 

Thanks for your help.

 

Norm

 

 

 

[Edgar Guest]

I think that the proper procedure would be for any member (presumably a Board member other than the chair) to move that a recess be taken for (say) 20 minutes so that the Board may conduct business.

 

Board members enjoy no special status at a meeting of the general membership. In the situation you describe, I would think an adjournment is more appropriate than a recess. The meeting of the general membership could adjourn to a later time so that a special meeting of the board could be called (assuming all requirements for calling such a special meeting could be met).

 

Edited to add: But if the general members don't want to adjourn (or even recess) there's nothing the board can do about it since the board can't act (as a board) except at a meeting of the board. Which this general membership meeting ain't.

[Josh Martin]

In the past, when the votes were counted during an annual owner meeting, the chair called a "recess" to do Board business. To me, that was some kind of a violation because only the owners can allow non-member business to be done during an owner meeting. I think that the proper procedure would be for any member (presumably a Board member other than the chair) to move that a recess be taken for (say) 20 minutes so that the Board may conduct business. That would require a second, would be non-debatable, and then voted upon. However, there is no question pending, so maybe the chair has the right to do this without owner permisison.

 

Is the chair's recess a violation or not?

 

The chair has no authority to declare a recess without a vote whether or not a question is pending. The motion to Recess requires a majority vote for adoption whether it is made as a privileged motion or a main motion. The difference between the two is whether the motion is debatable. Since the motion to Recess is a main motion when no question is pending, the motion is debatable. Otherwise, however, I think you have it right.

[Edgar Guest]

Me: And those many Internet authors who use "business" instead of "question" are just loose with language? They really mean "question" and not something else?

 

I don't see how it matters whether you call what's pending "business" or "a question". The chair can't call a recess on his own.

 

And I don't know who those "many internet authors" are. Here we stick with the current (11th) edition of RONR (which isn't available online).

[Gary Novosielski]

In this context, "business" and "question" are synonymous.  They both refer to the motion that is before the assembly at that time.  When an election is pending, the motion is assumed, and the question is, who shall be elected?

[Josh Martin]

In this context, "business" and "question" are synonymous.  They both refer to the motion that is before the assembly at that time.  When an election is pending, the motion is assumed, and the question is, who shall be elected?

 

It's not necessarily clear to me, however, that the election is pending while the ballots are being counted, since the assembly may proceed to conduct other business during that time.

[Edgar Guest]

It's not necessarily clear to me, however, that the election is pending while the ballots are being counted, since the assembly may proceed to conduct other business during that time.

 

So you're saying that the election is a "done deal" but, until the tellers report, we don't yet know what the deal is? What if the results are inconclusive? Does the election return to a "pending" status? I'm not necessarily disagreeing; just asking. A "common sense" view would be that the election is pending until the election is complete.

[Josh Martin]

So you're saying that the election is a "done deal" but, until the tellers report, we don't yet know what the deal is? What if the results are inconclusive? Does the election return to a "pending" status? I'm not necessarily disagreeing; just asking. A "common sense" view would be that the election is pending until the election is complete.

 

If the election is pending until it is complete, however, how is it possible that the assembly may conduct other business while the votes are being counted?

 

It seems to me that the election is not pending while the results are counted, and it does indeed become pending again when the results are reported, interrupting business then pending in much the same way as a special order whose time for consideration has been reached.

[Edgar Guest]

If the election is pending until it is complete, however, how is it possible that the assembly may conduct other business while the votes are being counted?

 

Because, although the election is still pending (i.e. incomplete), the motion that resulted in an election is no longer pending?

[Gary Novosielski]

It certainly seems to me that the question on the election is perilously close to being laid on the table while the other business is conducted, except that no motion to lay it there, nor any motion to take it from there ever happens.   Exactly how it becomes pending once again is not crystal clear to me, although a member of the tellers committee being recognized to report the results would probably do the trick.

[jstackpo]

The election cannot possibly be "pending" during the time between the closing of voting and the teller's announcement of results.

 

If it were "pending" and some business was transacted during that time interval (p. 408), all of that business would be null and void (or could properly be ruled so if a point of order was raised) for the simple reason that pages 59 & 263 make it clear that you must clear the decks of all pending motions before introducing a new main motion, or question. This is asserted to be a Fundamental Principle of Parliamentary Law (FPPL).

 

The consequences of failing to follow a FPPL are dire indeed:  the action taken in such violation is “null and void” and sets up a continuing breach which could last forever (p. 251, ( d ) ).

 

I'd go along with the "implicit Table" suggestion.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Whyever are we not noticing that, while the tellers are working and other business is being transacted,  the election is not the immediately pending question, which is the crux?

[jstackpo]

"Not Immediately pending"  --  true, but how did it get into that state?  There is certainly no device to cause that change of status mentioned on p. 408.

 

A motion can be moved in to "not immediately pending" status by making a "secondary motion" - p. 59ff.  --  but there are no "secondary motions" in evidence when the assembly takes up some new business while the ballots are being counted.

[George Mervosh]

As Mr. Honemann once noted  "As used in RONR, “pending” is a term of art,"  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/13256-previous-question-and-preambles/?hl=%2Bpending+%2Bterm#entry65668    Amen.

[Edgar Guest]

As Mr. Honemann once noted  "As used in RONR, “pending” is a term of art,"  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/13256-previous-question-and-preambles/?hl=%2Bpending+%2Bterm#entry65668    Amen.

 

And I guess "term of art" is a term of art for something that doesn't mean what it appears to mean. Imagine walking through the RONR Term of Art Gallery. Over there are minutes that have been expunged but not expunged. And over there is an election that's pending but not pending. I know there's at least one more but it escapes me at the moment. Perhaps the next edition could include a glossary.

[Guest Nancy N.]

"Not Immediately pending"  --  true, but how did it get into that state?  There is certainly no device to cause that change of status mentioned on p. 408...

 

Yes, doctor, but it clearly is... Because the book says that it's in order to go ahead and transact that other business.  Which means, unless you're a registered Democrat (or the book is wrong, an intrinsic theosophical heresy) that it is intrinsically implicit (or implicitly intrinsic, I'm losing track) that the election indeed migrated into that state.  If we accept this, which I think we have done, then that issue is settled, and we proceed to deliberating on the issue (touched on in posts 8, 9, and splendidly in 12 ("not crystal clear"!  Is this writer awesome or what!)) of how, indeed, it got into that state.

 

... A motion can be moved in to "not immediately pending" status by making a "secondary motion" - p. 59ff.  --  but there are no "secondary motions" in evidence when the assembly takes up some new business while the ballots are being counted.

 

So is the book wrong? -- In any event, can we at least settle OP "Mikilac's" ("Norm"?) mind that we're no longer debating what he asked, so maybe (per post 7) he can stay calm, and keep reading if he wishes to find out incidentally about the crocodiles?

[jstackpo]

Alligators, actually.

 

Well, the book, on p. 408, could at least suggest that the election drops into a "not immediately pending" state (by virtue of what is called a "stealth motion") when new business is introduced during vote counting.

[Edgar Guest]

The election cannot possibly be "pending" during the time between the closing of voting and the teller's announcement of results.

 

If it were "pending" and some business was transacted during that time interval (p. 408), all of that business would be null and void (or could properly be ruled so if a point of order was raised) for the simple reason that pages 59 & 263 make it clear that you must clear the decks of all pending motions before introducing a new main motion, or question. 

 

Well, the book, on p. 408, could at least suggest that the election drops into a "not immediately pending" state (by virtue of what is called a "stealth motion") when new business is introduced during vote counting.

 

Somehow that reasoning seems a tad circular.

 

Are you saying that the election might be pending while the votes are being counted but that once new business is introduced the election ceases to be pending (through no "fault" of its own) simply because, according to the rules, it can't be pending (whether it's actually pending or not) when another main motion is being considered.

[jstackpo]

Reads a bit circular, I agree.  But my point about "it can't be pending" was that "can't be" was the conclusion of a reductio type argument to the effect that if it was pending all sorts of absurd consequences (because of the FPPL business) would follow.  Hence it cannot be pending. 

 

And then I speculated on how the election could be transmogrified into its appropriate "not immediately pending" state, and wished that the book had done that transmogrification for me, and us all.

[Timothy]

That does seem to beg the question, but I don't see any reason to claim that the question is pending in the sense that RONR uses the word. Suppose the group didn't move on to something else while the vote was being counted. What motions would make sense? Anything with lower precedence than Lay on the Table doesn't really make sense. So, they can either wait for the results, lay the question aside, or leave.

[Edgar Guest]

So, they can either wait for the results, lay the question aside, or leave.

 

That last option is usually my first option.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, doctor, but it clearly is... Because the book says that it's in order to go ahead and transact that other business.  Which means, unless you're a registered Democrat (or the book is wrong, an intrinsic theosophical heresy) that it is intrinsically implicit (or implicitly intrinsic, I'm losing track) that the election indeed migrated into that state.  If we accept this, which I think we have done, then that issue is settled, and we proceed to deliberating on the issue (touched on in posts 8, 9, and splendidly in 12 ("not crystal clear"!  Is this writer awesome or what!)) of how, indeed, it got into that state.

 

The post Mr. Mervosh linked to strongly suggests to me that the election is not pending (immediately or otherwise) while the votes are being counted.

[George Mervosh]

The post Mr. Mervosh linked to strongly suggests to me that the election is not pending (immediately or otherwise) while the votes are being counted.

 

Agreed. RONR might not have a glossary, Mr. Mt., but it does note:  "When the chair has stated the question, the motion is pending, that is, "on the floor."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 32.  It's clear that if the assembly takes up other business after voting has concluded and while the votes are being tabulated that whatever question was stated by the chair during the tabulation is, in fact, pending, and the election is not (at this point), because under the rules in RONR two main motions cannot be pending at the same time. 

[Guest Nancy N.]

Yes.  The not-immediatel-pending idea bothered me as soon as I posted it, but couldn't figure out why, though Dr. Stackpole made it clear in post 13, and Gary Novosielski probably put his finger on it right before.  As Mr. Honemann said in the post George referenced in post 16, the election cannot be (un-immediately) pending while another main motion is being considered, period.

 

I'm now leaning towards a stealth motion, and a stealth process, that does the job.  Or commits the crime.  Whichever.  Where is Stalin to blame when you need it.