Motion to devide the house

[Guest Steven V. Agraviador]

Is it true that any motion, when seconded, and objections were presented is automatically carried? And a motion to devide the house, to determine the consensus of the members, is out of order?

[Dan Honemann]

Is it true that any motion, when seconded, and objections were presented is automatically carried? And a motion to devide the house, to determine the consensus of the members, is out of order?

 

The notion that any motion, when seconded and objections are presented, is automatically carried is absurd.

 

There is no motion to "divide the house" in RONR. When a motion is voted on by voice or show of hands, any member who doubts the result as announced by the chair may demand a "division of the assembly", thus requiring that the vote be taken again by rising (see RONR, 11th ed., Sec. 29).

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Is it true that any motion, when seconded, and objections were presented is automatically carried? And a motion to devide the house, to determine the consensus of the members, is out of order?

 

These seem to be unusual questions to me. I'm curious to understand where these ideas are coming from.

 

 

Edited to add: I think Mr. Martin in Post #5 brilliantly deciphered the intent of the questions and provided the appropriate answers.

[Richard Brown]

These seem to be unusual questions to me. I'm curious to understand where these ideas are coming from.

Same here!   

[Josh Martin]

Is it true that any motion, when seconded, and objections were presented is automatically carried? And a motion to devide the house, to determine the consensus of the members, is out of order?

Did you perhaps mean to ask whether it is true that any motion, when seconded, and no objections were presented is automatically carried? If this is the case, this sounds like what RONR calls "unanimous consent." On routine motions where no opposition is expected, the chair can often save time by asking the assembly "Is there any objection to the motion? (pause) Seeing none, the motion is adopted."

If a member wished to require that the assembly follow the more formal process of debate followed by a vote, he would raise an objection. A call for a Division of the Assembly would not be in order at that time, as the purpose of that motion is to require a rising vote when an inconclusive voice vote has been taken. If the chair is asking whether there are any objections, the assembly hasn't even reached the point of taking a voice vote yet.

[Guest Steven V. Agraviador]

You got it right, Josh Martin, it was supposed to be "no explicit objections presented."  So, if a member wants to know whether the rest of the assembly shares the same sentiment as the movant, would a simple declaration as "objection to the motion" be enough?

[Richard Brown]

You got it right, Josh Martin, it was supposed to be "no explicit objections presented."  So, if a member wants to know whether the rest of the assembly shares the same sentiment as the movant, would a simple declaration as "objection to the motion" be enough?

Well, a simple "I object"  (or your version of it) would suffice to stop the motion from being adopted by unanimous consent, but it's not enough to stop it from being adopted by majority vote.   If you really object to the motion, you need to seek recognition to speak out with your objections and urge your fellow members to vote it down.  That's called debate.   If  you just object, but don't speak out in debate, and nobody else does either, the chair just puts the motion to a vote without any debate.

 

Edited to add:  You say "I object" only when the chair is asking for objections.... when he wants to do something by unanimous consent.  You say it in response to his question or statement that, "It has been moved and seconded that we paint the clubhouse pink.  If there are no objections, we will  paint the clubhouse pink".  Well, if you don't want it painted pink, you darn well better say "I object" and say it fast, before he says, "Hearing no objection, the motion is adopted and we will paint the clubhouse pink".  Then you need to get to debating why you think it should not be painted pink.

 

The chair should ask if there any objections if it appears that everyone is in agreement, but it doesn't always work out that way in real life because lots of presiding officers don't know the correct procedure.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is it true that any motion, when seconded, and [no] objections were presented is automatically carried? 

 

No.  Not unless the chair treats the motion as a unanimous-consent request, and pauses to ask for objections. 

 

For example, if a motion were made and seconded, and the chair asked if there were any debate (more formally: "Are you ready for the question?"), and nobody sought recognition to debate the question, the chair could not then declare the motion adopted.  Instead, the chair would put the question to a vote.  

 

It is not unusual for a motion that has no discussion to be voted down, perhaps because it was self-evident to a sizeable majority that it was a really bad idea.

[Bruce Lages]

You got it right, Josh Martin, it was supposed to be "no explicit objections presented."  So, if a member wants to know whether the rest of the assembly shares the same sentiment as the movant, would a simple declaration as "objection to the motion" be enough?

 

Your second sentence sounds very much like the member is asking for a 'straw poll', i.e., a non-binding survey of how many are for and how many are against the motion. RONR does not sanction straw polls because they are simply a waste of time in a meeting where members are supposed to be conducting business. Since a  motion has been made, the assembly is obligated to deal with it in some way, if not be a direct vote then by postponing it or sending it to a committee for further study. But it is certainly not in order after a motion has been made to try to gauge the sentiment of  the assembly in a non-binding way.

[Josh Martin]

You got it right, Josh Martin, it was supposed to be "no explicit objections presented." So, if a member wants to know whether the rest of the assembly shares the same sentiment as the movant, would a simple declaration as "objection to the motion" be enough?

If a member objects to unanimous consent, then the chair will proceed to ask for debate and, after debate has concluded, will take a vote, so the member will eventually learn whether the rest of the assembly shares the same sentiment as the motion maker.

[Guest Steven V. Agraviador]

Thank you everybody for your help.