Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
J. J.

Reconsider an action taken under suspension.

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I would say that considering a main motion in inclusive of disposing it (except in the case of Objection To the Consideration of a Question).    It could include debate on the motion or subsidiary motions being applied to it.

But this is just more inclusion.  What is a sufficient condition for the motion having been considered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I hesitate to add the following caveat, because I suspect it may be taken undue advantage of, but I am open to the idea that there may be some other conclusion than what I have stated in this thread. However, so far I haven't seen any argument based even remotely on what RONR actually says about anything related to this subject.

You have it exactly right as far as I can see.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

And what about

[Zev] Mr. Chairman.

[Chairman] Mr. Zev is recognized.

[Zev] I move that the rules be suspended and the main motion and its pending amendment be reconsidered.

As the presiding chairman do you think this is legitimate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

And what about

[Zev] Mr. Chairman.

[Chairman] Mr. Zev is recognized.

[Zev] I move that the rules be suspended and the main motion and its pending amendment be reconsidered.

As the presiding chairman do you think this is legitimate?

The chair would need to clarify for the assembly exactly what the effect of this motion would be, but if I understand your intent correctly, I think such a motion would be in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

I understand. The problem with this scenario is that under normal circumstances a reconsideration could be had with a majority vote but because the motion to Suspend The Rules cannot be reconsidered the only option is either another motion to Suspend The Rules or Rescind. In your opinion, what if the motion was to reconsider the main motion or the main motion and its amendment, excluding the motion to Suspend The Rules. Don't you think Mr. Brown's take on this carries some weight in that Suspend The Rules was only the vehicle that caused the adoption and no one is seeking to reconsider that motion? I would feel a whole lot better about the entire argument if the rules for Suspend The Rules said somewhere that "a motion or series of motions that are adopted by way of Suspend The Rules may not be reconsidered," or something to that affect, but I don't see that. Perhaps it should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I understand. The problem with this scenario is that under normal circumstances a reconsideration could be had with a majority vote but because the motion to Suspend The Rules cannot be reconsidered the only option is either another motion to Suspend The Rules or Rescind. In your opinion, what if the motion was to reconsider the main motion or the main motion and its amendment, excluding the motion to Suspend The Rules. Don't you think Mr. Brown's take on this carries some weight in that Suspend The Rules was only the vehicle that caused the adoption and no one is seeking to reconsider that motion? I would feel a whole lot better about the entire argument if the rules for Suspend The Rules said somewhere that "a motion or series of motions that are adopted by way of Suspend The Rules may not be reconsidered," or something to that affect, but I don't see that. Perhaps it should.

If you read the preceding posts you will see that this question has been asked and answered, but I suppose Mr. Gerber can answer it again if he doesn't mind repeating himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If you read the preceding posts you will see that this question has been asked and answered, but I suppose Mr. Gerber can answer it again if he doesn't mind repeating himself.

Nah, if I got it right the first couple of times, I don't want to risk messing up now. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2016 at 11:06 PM, Godelfan said:

But this is just more inclusion.  What is a sufficient condition for the motion having been considered?

If the question has been disposed of in some manner other than by Object to the Consideration, it was considered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, J. J. said:

If the question has been disposed of in some manner other than by Object to the Consideration, it was considered. 

I agree. That is the reason for my opinion (the first response in this thread) that the adoption of the motion can be reconsidered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this recent exchange completely overlooks the fact that (as Mr. Gerber has already pointed out) it is not a motion that can be reconsidered per se, but rather the assembly's decision (vote) in adopting or rejecting it.

There should be no doubt at all but that the vote on a motion "to suspend the rules and agree to (anything)" cannot be reconsidered (RONR, 11th ed., p. 261, l. 18).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Zev

1. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the motion to Suspend the Rules that adopted Resolution X.

2. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider Resolution X and its amendment.

3. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider Resolution X.

Some are persuaded that these three motions are identical and deserve to be ruled out of order. I can see with my own eyes that motion (1) is out of order as Mr. Honemann has indicated. Perhaps I can be persuaded that motions (2) and (3) are out of order, however, I have yet to see the evidence that they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

1. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the motion to Suspend the Rules that adopted Resolution X.

2. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider Resolution X and its amendment.

3. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider Resolution X.

Some are persuaded that these three motions are identical and deserve to be ruled out of order. I can see with my own eyes that motion (1) is out of order as Mr. Honemann has indicated. Perhaps I can be persuaded that motions (2) and (3) are out of order, however, I have yet to see the evidence that they are.

These three motions are identical at least in one respect - they are all incorrectly worded. This is the Advanced Discussion Forum, mind you.  :)

Guest Zev, I suggest you read the post immediately preceding this last post of yours, look at the examples of motions to Reconsider found on pages 350-352  330-332  (and No. 73 on tinted p. 38), and then reword your motions correctly. When you do, perhaps you will understand why (2) and (3) are not in order. Or not.

Edited by Daniel H. Honemann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

These three motions are identical at least in one respect - they are all incorrectly worded. This is the Advanced Discussion Forum, mind you.  :)

Guest Zev, I suggest you read the post immediately preceding this last post of yours, look at the examples of motions to Reconsider found on pages 350-352 (and No. 73 on tinted p. 38), and then reword your motions correctly. When you do, perhaps you will understand why (2) and (3) are not in order. Or not.

Shouldn't that be pages 330-332?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2016 at 3:35 PM, Guest Zev said:

1. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider the motion to Suspend the Rules that adopted Resolution X.

2. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider Resolution X and its amendment.

3. Mr. Chairman, I move to reconsider Resolution X.

Some are persuaded that these three motions are identical and deserve to be ruled out of order. I can see with my own eyes that motion (1) is out of order as Mr. Honemann has indicated. Perhaps I can be persuaded that motions (2) and (3) are out of order, however, I have yet to see the evidence that they are.

As noted #1 is out of order because a motion to suspend the rules is not subject to reconsider (p. 321, #8). 

#2 if worded properly, e.g. "I move to reconsider the votes on Resolution X and its amendment," is in order, clearly, when Resolution X is not adopted as part of a suspension of the rules (p. 328, l. 4-7; pp. 332-3).   #3

The question seems to be if there was a vote on Resolution X (and its amendment) to be reconsidered.  I would say that there was a vote to adopt Resolution X, that was incorporated into the process of suspending the rules.  Adopting the motion "to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution X" is tantamount to a motion "to adopt Resolution X."  The process for reaching Resolution X is different, but what the assembly did with Resolution X, finally, is the same in both cases.

In order to reach the disposition of Resolution X, at that point in time, it was necessary to suspend the rules; to approve Resolution X, once reached, it is not necessary to further suspend the rules.  The two thirds that agreed to reach Resolution X at this point, also supplied the vote to adopt Resolution X; there are multiple motions pending at the same time (p. 262, ll. 8-17). One of those motions, the vote that was supplied to adopt Resolution X can be reconsidered. 

Share this post


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

As noted #1 is out of order because a motion to suspend the rules is not subject to reconsider (p. 321, #8). 

#2 if worded properly, e.g. "I move to reconsider the votes on Resolution X and its amendment," is in order, clearly, when Resolution X is not adopted as part of a suspension of the rules (p. 328, l. 4-7; pp. 332-3).   #3

The question seems to be if there was a vote on Resolution X (and its amendment) to be reconsidered.  I would say that there was a vote to adopt Resolution X, that was incorporated into the process of suspending the rules.  Adopting the motion "to suspend the rules and adopt Resolution X" is tantamount to a motion "to adopt Resolution X."  The process for reaching Resolution X is different, but what the assembly did with Resolution X, finally, is the same in both cases.

In order to reach the disposition of Resolution X, at that point in time, it was necessary to suspend the rules; to approve Resolution X, once reached, it is not necessary to further suspend the rules.  The two thirds that agreed to reach Resolution X at this point, also supplied the vote to adopt Resolution X; there are multiple motions pending at the same time (p. 262, ll. 8-17). One of those motions, the vote that was supplied to adopt Resolution X can be reconsidered. 

We seem to be back in a class in Parliamentary Law 101. If there is anything that should be obvious in all of this it is that no vote was taken on the main motion to adopt Resolution X (or on the subsidiary motion to amend it).

Whenever a vote is taken on a motion, that vote will finally dispose of the motion voted on by either adopting or rejecting it. When a vote is taken on a motion "to suspend the rules and agree to Resolution X ...", there is no possibility whatsoever that the vote will result in a rejection of the resolution. If the motion is defeated, the resolution will remain pending because the motion to adopt it was not voted on. The same thing is true with respect to the subsidiary motion which was pending to amend Resolution X. There is no possibility whatsoever that the vote will result in adoption of the amendment because that motion to Amend was not voted on.

Motions "to suspend the rules and agree to ..." are not incidental motions in a class all by themselves; they are motions to suspend the rules. There's no need to make a change on tinted page 46 by inserting "To suspend the rules and agree to ..." immediately below "Postpone Indefinitely".*  :)

------------------------------------

* Actually, to accomplish what J.J. and others seem to want, this is, indeed, a change which would have to be made. However, this is not the rule at the present time.

Edited by Daniel H. Honemann
Added the footnote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
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...

×
×
  • Create New...