Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
paulmcclintock

Motion to consider motion outside object - debatable?

Recommended Posts

Bylaws allow resolutions to be submitted late with a two-thirds vote to permit consideration. I don't find in RONR a general rule that motions on consideration are not debatable. Objection to consideration is not debatable per RONR, but I did not see debatability addressed for the motion to allow consideration of a motion outside the object of the society.

Are there any citations for either the general question above or the title question?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, paulmcclintock said:

Bylaws allow resolutions to be submitted late with a two-thirds vote to permit consideration. I don't find in RONR a general rule that motions on consideration are not debatable. Objection to consideration is not debatable per RONR, but I did not see debatability addressed for the motion to allow consideration of a motion outside the object of the society.

Are there any citations for either the general question above or the title question?

 

I think I would treat both as suspensions of the rules, meaning that they would be neither debatable nor amendable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. A motion to allow the introduction of an item of business outside the object of the society, even if it is not a suspension of the rules, is certainly an incidental motion and therefore undebatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Quote

A motion to allow the introduction of an item of business outside the object of the society, even if it is not a suspension of the rules, is certainly an incidental motion and therefore undebatable.

Not all incidental motions are undebatable.  "Most incidental motions are undebatable" (RONR p. 69, l. 25).  Appeal is sometimes debatable. 

And an incidental main motion (p. 74, l. 17ff) is presumably debatable (pp. 100-103).  And either of these (motion to consider a motion outside the society's object, or motion to consider a late submission of a resolution to a convention) would typically be made when no other question was pending.

I agree that these two motions-to-consider would be incidental, and since there is no such separately named incidental motion, suspend the rules seems the most logical way to treat it, which addresses permit-consideration issues on p. 262, l. 19.

As far as I can see, the only times a motion is undebatable when it is made when no other question is pending are:

  1. a typical motion to adjourn (p. 233, l. 33ff), and
  2. take from the table (p. 301, l. 23).

But p. 260, ll. 30-32 seems to indicate that suspend the rules is always treated as an incidental motion (thus undebatable per p. 261, l. 12), even if no other question is pending.  That adds a "3. suspend the rules" to the list above.

I think I've convinced myself from RONR now.  Before this exercise, I had the gut feeling that both were nondebatable, but felt uneasy that I couldn't defend it well.

If anyone has more to add to the list of 3 above, I'd be interested to see the additions.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between an incidental motion and an incidental main motion is that an incidental motion made when no motion is pending relates to a specific item of business that is to be introduced (pg. 69, l. 14). An incidental main motion doesn't directly relate to another item of business in such a way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 10, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Guest said:

But p. 260, ll. 30-32 seems to indicate that suspend the rules is always treated as an incidental motion (thus undebatable per p. 261, l. 12), even if no other question is pending.  That adds a "3. suspend the rules" to the list above.

It is not correct that Suspend the Rules is always an incidental motion, but it is an incidental motion in this instance. An example of an incidental main motion to Suspend the Rules would be one which has effect for the entire meeting.

An incidental motion is one which is incidental to a pending motion, or...

1.) To a motion which it is desired to introduce (as in the example in this thread)

2.) To a motion which has been made, but has not yet been stated by the chair - and is therefore not yet pending (a good example is Objection to Consideration of a Question)

3.) To a motion which was just pending (such as a motion to order a counted vote on a vote which has just been taken)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2016 at 10:25 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think I would treat both as suspensions of the rules, meaning that they would be neither debatable nor amendable.

 

I think I would treat it as an incidental main motion and would phrase it as:  "I move to permit the following motion to be introduced:  [State the motion]."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if the motion to be introduced would otherwise not be in order due to some applicable rule, this is effectively a motion to suspend the rule and permit the motion.  Failing to call it a suspension of the rules doesn't change what it is.

More common, probably, is the motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass...<a motion>.  In that case the entire motion becomes undebatable.  In your example, the motion to permit is not debatable, but the motion for which permission is sought presumably would be, if actually permitted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, J. J. said:

I think I would treat it as an incidental main motion and would phrase it as:  "I move to permit the following motion to be introduced:  [State the motion]."

 

9 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But if the motion to be introduced would otherwise not be in order due to some applicable rule, this is effectively a motion to suspend the rule and permit the motion.  Failing to call it a suspension of the rules doesn't change what it is.

 

I think this is exactly right, and in the context of the questions asked here, the motion "to permit the following motion to be introduced: ..." is obviously seeking a suspension of the rules so that the motion can be introduced (which is why it requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption). It is an excellent example of an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules being made at a time when no question is pending (RONR, 11th ed., p. 260, ll. 30-32). As such, it is neither debatable nor amendable, and it takes only about 30 seconds thinking about it to understand why this should be the case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/12/2016 at 9:06 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But if the motion to be introduced would otherwise not be in order due to some applicable rule, this is effectively a motion to suspend the rule and permit the motion.  Failing to call it a suspension of the rules doesn't change what it is.

More common, probably, is the motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass...<a motion>.  In that case the entire motion becomes undebatable.  In your example, the motion to permit is not debatable, but the motion for which permission is sought presumably would be, if actually permitted.

 

Well, under either, you are not getting into the merits of the motion.  You are getting the advisability of introducing a motion outside of the scope.  I see this as a difference.  It would also add that to adopt either would take a 2/3 vote.

 

I can see a legitimate difference between a motion to permit something be considered versus adopting a motion that is being considered.

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...

×