2 main motions

[Guest Gary]

Can there be any way two main motions can exist at the same time? We had a motion to adopt something, but the next agenda item had to be disposed of first. The chair wanted to delay a vote on the first item, and wanted to take care of the second. I point of ordered to have the first motion maker withdraw his motion, along with the seconder, but was there any other RONR way to do this? Thanks.

[Timothy]

This appears to be the rare case when the motion to table a motion is in order.

[Edgar Guest]

This appears to be the rare case when the motion to table a motion is in order.

 

Which the cognoscenti refer to as the motion to Lay on the Table.

[Josh Martin]

Can there be any way two main motions can exist at the same time?

 

Two main motions cannot be pending at the same time, but there are a number of ways to temporarily dispose of a main motion.

 

We had a motion to adopt something, but the next agenda item had to be disposed of first. The chair wanted to delay a vote on the first item, and wanted to take care of the second. I point of ordered to have the first motion maker withdraw his motion, along with the seconder, but was there any other RONR way to do this? Thanks.

 

A Point of Order was not the appropriate tool (since no rule had been violated), but otherwise the way you did it works fine if the motion maker is willing to withdraw his motion and the assembly agrees to it. The seconder's permission is not required.

 

Another way to do it would have been a motion to Lay on the Table. It is not debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption. If adopted, the pending motion is set aside until the assembly adopts a motion to Take from the Table (which is also undebatable and requires a majority vote for adoption). It is used in exactly this situation - when the assembly wishes to temporarily set aside the pending business in order to reach some other matter which requires the assembly's attention.

[Guest Gary]

To leave a main motion on the floor and take up another motion was in my opinion a violation of Roberts rule, no?

[Timothy]

To leave a main motion on the floor and take up another motion was in my opinion a violation of Roberts rule, no?

It is correct that having two motions "on the floor" would be a violation. However, if the second motion is made before the first is disposed of, the point of order should be that the second motion is improper, not the first.

[Gary Novosielski]

To leave a main motion on the floor and take up another motion was in my opinion a violation of Roberts rule, no?

 

Yes, that's what the Table is for.

[Bruce Lages]

To leave a main motion on the floor and take up another motion was in my opinion a violation of Roberts rule, no?

 

No, not necessarily. The rule in RONR is that two main motions may not be pending a the same time. There are many subsidiary motions, privileged motions, and incidental motions that are in order, and in some cases are only applicable, when a main motion is pending ('on the floor').

[Guest Guest]

Sorry I should have said two main motions, as was happening. The original question was answered by Josh, Thank you.