Ending Discussion

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Requests are not debatable (RONR 11th ed., p. 293, l. 10).

[Richard Brown]

Requests are not debatable (RONR 11th ed., p. 293, l. 10).

That is true, but a request to "move on to the next topic", I believe, would require a majority vote.   It is similar to, and probably tantamount to, a "motion to end the discussion" as I suggested in post # 22.  If so, and if it is permissible in lieu of a motion for the previous question, then it would presumably require only a majority vote....which answers one of the questions I had in post 22 as to the vote required for a vote to "terminate the discussion".

 

I agree that it is probably as good a method as any .... and maybe better.... for the purpose of ending an informal discussion and moving on.   And the more I think of it, I think it is more appropriate than the motion for the previous question, which is probably designed to apply to debatable motions to DO something.... as opposed to just talking about something. 

 

P.S.  Good find, Hieu.

[George Mervosh]

I think Dr. Entropy answered this question - make a motion.   Aside from a small board setting, a regular assembly can resolve itself into a committee of the whole or a quasi committee to freely discuss a subject without a motion pending.  As soon as a motion is made to rise or rise and report (except in the quasi committee where rise is not used and the adoption of any other motion will end the proceedings), it's immediately voted on and if adopted the discussion that took place there ends and it's back to the normal rules.  Either way, a motion of some kind ends the discussion, for now.

[Josh Martin]

First, as to how to start the discussion: Is a formal motion to open discussion on a topic necessary?

In a small board, no motion is necessary to begin informal discussion of a subject when no motion is pending. In a larger assembly, a motion would be necessary.

Is the "question" of discussing the clubhouse then put to a vote? Would a motion to postpone the discussion be appropriate? Remember, no motion is pending....there is only informal discussion. It seems to me that such a motion would be proper. What about a motion to refer the "discussion" to a committee? It seems to me that such a motion arising out of the discussion would likewise be proper.

The motions to Postpone to a Certain Time and to Commit can be made while no motion is pending, although in such cases they are incidental main motions rather than subsidiary motions.

As to the question of how to terminate the discussion, assuming no one has objected to it and it has been going on for ten or fifteen minutes. And nobody moves to refer it to a committee. How is the discussion ended if the member who started the discussion isn't yet ready to end it? Is a motion for the previous question in order since there is no motion... no question.... pending? There is only discussion. Or would it be appropriate for a member to move to....gasp.... dare I say it.... make a motion that isn't specifically mentioned in RONR to "terminate the discussion on this issue"?

It seems to me that either option would be appropriate, but I have a question about using a "Motion to terminate the discussion": particularly as to the vote required. Imagine this scenario: "Mr. Chairman, I move that we terminate the discussion on this issue". Discussion could end at that point by unanimous consent if there is no objection. But, what if there an objection to ending the discussion? Would the motion to end discussion require a two-thirds vote as does the motion for the previous question, or could it be adopted with a majority vote?

Informal discussion is permitted while no motion is pending, but such discussion does not prevent members from making other motions. As noted above, a member could make a motion (even a main motion, since no motion is pending). This would put an end to the informal discussion, since there is then a motion pending and any discussion would need to be germane to that motion.

I believe it would also be in order to move to terminate the discussion, and this motion would require a majority vote. Even in the context of a small board, I don't believe that members have a right to speak when no motion is pending, so a 2/3 vote is not necessary.

The motion for the Previous Question is not in order while no motion is pending. The effect of this motion is not only to end debate (and prevent the making of lower-ranking subsidiary motions), but also to bring the pending motion to an immediate vote. As such, it has no meaningful application when no motion is pending.

[Richard Brown]

Thanks, Josh.  I agree with all of your conclusions.  Very good job of summing things up, too! 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

A perfect way to end a discussion on ending discussion.

[Gary Novosielski]

A perfect way to end a discussion on ending discussion.

 

Well, it was. But then your message became the end.  

 

And now.... d'Oh!