Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
parkourninja

When to Repeat the Wording of a Motion

Recommended Posts

I understand that the exact wording of a motion should be stated by the chair when putting the question to a vote and when re-stating the question so that it is officially pending. Are there any other instances where the chair must say the exact wording of the motion or can they simply refer to it as the pending motion.

For example, if a recess took place while a secondary amendment was pending, when the chair calls the meeting back to order, do they need to say "We will now continue debate on the motion to...." or can they simply say "We will now continue debate on the pending secondary amendment"? I can see the first wording getting extremely wordy and confusion if the chair had to constantly state all the pending motions verbatim whenever an interruption like a recess or question of privilege occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems based on this clarification and upon reading other "Form and Example" clarifications in RONR that the chair should always restate the pending motion using the exact wording. Is this generalization correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not absolutely.

The chair, between

(a.) the initial placing before the assembly; and

(b.) the conducting of the vote,

can use a nickhame or shorthand reference.

e.g.:

• "The Johnson resolution"

• "The playground resolution"

• "The sale-of-property main motion"

E.g., if you were adopting the full text of the Historian's 150-page report, the chair would not read aloud all 150 pages with every reference between actions #a and #b.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is good to hear. Does that mean then that in the case of RONR (11th ed.), p. 233, ll. 1-5 (previously mentioned by @George Mervosh it would be OK to use an abbreviation of the immediately pending question)?

Are there any guidelines on what is an acceptable "abbreviation"?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parkourninja said:

That is good to hear. Does that mean then that in the case of RONR (11th ed.), p. 233, ll. 1-5 (previously mentioned by @George Mervosh it would be OK to use an abbreviation of the immediately pending question)?

Are there any guidelines on what is an acceptable "abbreviation"?

 

 

It should be stated verbatim unless it makes zero sense to do so, like if you're considering a bylaw revision seriatim, when it's probably just fine to say that Article ___, Section ___ is once again open for any proposed amendment and debate.   Why the hesitation to state the question in its full form?  No abbreviation is acceptable on a regular motion if there's even a chance that the members aren't perfectly clear what the immediately pending question is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, parkourninja said:

Are there any guidelines on what is an acceptable "abbreviation"?

No.

RONR 11th edition does not go into such non-parliamentary detail as "choosing a keyword" or "picking a proper noun".

This really is not a parliamentary problem to be solved by a parliamentary rule. Any suitable mnemonic device should be adequate.

***

Perhaps if you gave us an example of a "secondary amendment" (your original example) where the chair is nonplussed and flummoxed beyond comprehension, then I could understand what kind of puzzle you are trying to describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RONR contains one example where the shorthand reference is prefaced with "... relating to ...".
(See page 357)
 

Quote

When a special order that was so introduced comes up, the chair announces it as pending, thus:  
“At the last meeting, the resolution relating to funds for a new playground was made a special order for this meeting."
[...]
"The resolution is as follows:  ‘Resolved, That . . . [reading it].’  
The question is on the adoption of the resolution."

Note that RONR never goes into detail how the clever chairman thunk up the phrase, ". . . funds for a new playground . . ." when he referenced the full resolution using only those five words.

That noun-phrase is the dynamic, on-the-fly invention of the chairman.

RONR contains no advice on how to pick a keyword; how to label a resolution with a five-word nickname.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Note that RONR never goes into detail how the clever chairman thunk up the phrase, ". . . funds for a new playground . . ." when he referenced the full resolution using only those five words.

That noun-phrase is the dynamic, on-the-fly invention of the chairman.

RONR contains no advice on how to pick a keyword; how to label a resolution with a five-word nickname.

But RONR does give a hint, where it mentions (top of p. 39), "identifying the resolution by its subject or designated title, number, letter, or the like, as by saying, 'It is moved and seconded to adopt the resolution relating to ..., as printed.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, parkourninja said:

I understand that the exact wording of a motion should be stated by the chair when putting the question to a vote and when re-stating the question so that it is officially pending. Are there any other instances where the chair must say the exact wording of the motion or can they simply refer to it as the pending motion.

For example, if a recess took place while a secondary amendment was pending, when the chair calls the meeting back to order, do they need to say "We will now continue debate on the motion to...." or can they simply say "We will now continue debate on the pending secondary amendment"? I can see the first wording getting extremely wordy and confusion if the chair had to constantly state all the pending motions verbatim whenever an interruption like a recess or question of privilege occurs.

 

6 hours ago, parkourninja said:

That is good to hear. Does that mean then that in the case of RONR (11th ed.), p. 233, ll. 1-5 (previously mentioned by @George Mervosh it would be OK to use an abbreviation of the immediately pending question)?

Are there any guidelines on what is an acceptable "abbreviation"?

 

5 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

It should be stated verbatim unless it makes zero sense to do so, like if you're considering a bylaw revision seriatim, when it's probably just fine to say that Article ___, Section ___ is once again open for any proposed amendment and debate.   Why the hesitation to state the question in its full form?  No abbreviation is acceptable on a regular motion if there's even a chance that the members aren't perfectly clear what the immediately pending question is.

I agree that the chair should state the motion in full whenever it seems necessary and reasonable to do so, but I think this is an interesting question that RONR does not fully address. There are very specific rules given on pages 37-39 and 45-46 regarding when the text of a motion must be read when the question is first stated and then when it is put to a vote. Guidance and examples are also given in cases of making clear what the effect of an amendment is or will be (pp. 142-144), and when a question becomes pending after having been postponed or otherwise made an order of the day (pp. 191, 357, 359) or referred to a committee (pp. 517-518). However, I don't think there are explicit rules regarding when the full text of a motion must be read in such cases or when there are other types of interruptions in its consideration (such as the intervention of a question of privilege, a special order, a recess, or an adjournment).

Of course, if the question comes up again at a later meeting, especially if that meeting is on another day, it will often be read again during the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, and I suppose that a member could demand that the full resolution be read at that time regardless of its length. But then there might be another delay between that time and when the actual question is brought again before the assembly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree that the chair should state the motion in full whenever it seems necessary and reasonable to do so, but I think this is an interesting question that RONR does not fully address. There are very specific rules given on pages 37-39 and 45-46 regarding when the text of a motion must be read when the question is first stated and then when it is put to a vote. Guidance and examples are also given in cases of making clear what the effect of an amendment is or will be (pp. 142-144), and when a question becomes pending after having been postponed or otherwise made an order of the day (pp. 191, 357, 359) or referred to a committee (pp. 517-518). However, I don't think there are explicit rules regarding when the full text of a motion must be read in such cases or when there are other types of interruptions in its consideration (such as the intervention of a question of privilege, a special order, a recess, or an adjournment).

Of course, if the question comes up again at a later meeting, especially if that meeting is on another day, it will often be read again during the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, and I suppose that a member could demand that the full resolution be read at that time regardless of its length. But then there might be another delay between that time and when the actual question is brought again before the assembly.

Yes I agree.  As you know, part of what I cited from the book in my first response simply says - "The question is on the resolution......" but stops there.  I'm a huge fan, in practice, of having the chair re-state the immediately pending question in full after some kind of interruption, unless it's really unreasonable to do so.  I find it especially necessary in the case where an amendment may be the immediately pending question.  Members lose track very quickly.  Common sense can carry the day when a specific rule does not exist, and even when it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×