Question concerning precedence and applying to

[JerryRig]

Please explain logic of a motion applying to a pending motion that it doesn't have precedence over.

Thank you. .

[Dan Honemann]

Please explain logic of a motion applying to a pending motion that it doesn't have precedence over.

Thank you. .

 

Would you like to provide an example of one of these situations?

[JerryRig]

Yes and please excuse my inexperience.

It is my understanding that when making the motion postpone Definitely on a pending motion of Orders of the day, that postpone definitely can be applied but does not take precedence over the pending motion. Thank you for any clarification.

[Dan Honemann]

Whenever a motion to Postpone is properly applied to an order of the day that is actually pending as a main motion (RONR, 11th ed., p. 181, ll. 8-12), it does then takes precedence over that pending main motion. Is this what you have in mind?

 

In other words, this is not a case of a motion applying to another pending motion over which it does not take precedence. I'm having difficulty conceiving of any such thing.

[Gary Novosielski]

If, on the other hand, you are referring to a Call for the Orders of the Day, you can't postpone that to a definite time.  If correctly made, it is acted on at once, unless, by a 2/3 vote (suspending the rules), it is set aside.  

 

But a question that is then taken up as a result of the "call" can probably be postponed.

 

Other than that, I'm also at a loss to understand the situation.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It is my understanding that

when making the motion postpone Definitely

on a pending motion of Orders of the day,

that postpone definitely can be applied

but does not take precedence over the pending motion.

JerryRig,

That just does not make sense.

 

". . . on a pending motion of Orders of the day . . ."

does not make sense.

 

". . . that postpone definitely can be applied but does not take precedence over the pending motion."

does not make sense.

 

I mean, did someone stand and say "I move the Orders of the Day?"

 

And, how can you apply X to something without first adopting X?

And, how can you adopt X if X did not have priority ("precedence") over the immediately pending question?

 

What to try again?

Please talk over with your colleagues your question before re-posting (a third time!).

Your two attempts aren't getting anywhere.

[Dan Honemann]

And, how can you apply X to something without first adopting X?

And, how can you adopt X if X did not have priority ("precedence") over the immediately pending question?

 

Since we have been referring to the application of one motion to another pending motion, this isn't very helpful.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Perhaps JerryRig is asking about how a subsidiary motion can have precedence over a privileged motion when a corresponding incidental main motion of the same name is used? In these cases, the privileged motions are no longer "privileged" but are treated as main motions. Am I close?

[JerryRig]

That's what I was trying to say. I see I need more attention to detail to survive. Thanks for your help.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

JerryRig, I'm glad I was able to help out. Feel free to ask additional questions by posting your questions as new topics in this forum.

 

I feel that to "survive", you need the right tools (the right book and the in brief version) and a willingness to learn. This forum has lots of experienced members who can answer your questions (and even answer questions you haven't thought of yet), so come back often!