motion made with no discussion before vote

[Guest will]

If a motion is made, with the statement at the end that the motion that it be voted on with no discussion, is that possible?  My understanding is that all motion must have a discussion before a vote.  What is correct?

[Richard Brown]

Some procedural motions are not debatable, but most substantive main motions of the type you are probably referring to are indeed debatable.  That means that the members must be given an opportunity to debate them.

[jstackpo]

It isn't up to the maker of the motion to preclude debate; it is the prerogative of the membership by a 2/3 vote.

[Shmuel Gerber]

12 hours ago, Guest will said:

If a motion is made, with the statement at the end that the motion that it be voted on with no discussion, is that possible?  My understanding is that all motion must have a discussion before a vote.  What is correct?

A member can move to suspend the rules and agree to a certain motion without debate, but then a two-thirds vote is required to adopt the motion.

[jstackpo]

Which can put someone in a logical bind:  If I wish to defeat the motion but also don't think the motion is worth talking about, there is no way I can express that with my vote.  If I vote "Yes" I am contributing to adopting the motion; if I vote "No" I am contributing to the possibility that discussion will ensue.

The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order.  Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

[Dan Honemann]

18 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Which can put someone in a logical bind:  If I wish to defeat the motion but also don't think the motion is worth talking about, there is no way I can express that with my vote.  If I vote "Yes" I am contributing to adopting the motion; if I vote "No" I am contributing to the possibility that discussion will ensue.

The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order.  Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

If you vote "no", you are contributing to defeat of the motion, and if it is defeated, no motion will remain pending.

[Clurichan]

29 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

...

The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order.  Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

Or, seems unlikely, but possibly, is this (M+PQ in one) a "motion that must be divided on demand"?

E.g., "I move to suspend the rules and approve the purchase of a new office computer without debate." OoO, DoD, or ...?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

No, it cannot be divided (see RONR 11th ed., p. 272).

[Gary Novosielski]

9 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Which can put someone in a logical bind:  If I wish to defeat the motion but also don't think the motion is worth talking about, there is no way I can express that with my vote.  If I vote "Yes" I am contributing to adopting the motion; if I vote "No" I am contributing to the possibility that discussion will ensue.

The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order.  Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

Actually, he motion would be along the lines of:  to Suspend the Rules and Pass a motion to paint the clubhouse taupe.    ...which is not debatable, not divisible, and requires a 2/3 vote to pass the motion.  If the vote fails, the motion is defeated.

[Dan Honemann]

8 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

subsequent Actually, he motion would be along the lines of:  to Suspend the Rules and Pass a motion to paint the clubhouse taupe.    ...which is not debatable, not divisible, and requires a 2/3 vote to pass the motion.  If the vote fails, the motion is defeated.

Yes, if the vote fails, the motion you describe will have been defeated, but just to be clear, this is not the same thing as defeating a motion "to paint the clubhouse taupe", and will not preclude the making of a motion "to paint the clubhouse taupe" at any later time during the same session.

Frankly, if you look carefully at the history behind the motion to "suspend the rules and agree to" (p. 262, ll. 6-8), some question arises as to whether or not such a motion to suspend the rules can be used to secure the adoption, without debate or amendment, of a proposal not previously introduced as well as one which has already been introduced. All three editions of ROR seemed to make it rather clear that it could be used in either instance (pp. 86-87). The 1970 edition of RONR, however, appears to refer only to instances in which the proposal has not as yet been introduced, whereas all subsequent editions appear to refer only to instances in which the proposal has already been introduced.

For the time being, I'll accept Shmuel's word for it that this motion to "suspend the rules and agree to" can still be used in either instance. 

[Gary c Tesser]

20 hours ago, Clurichan said:

...  OoO, DoD, or ...

I'm guessing that these mean "out of order" and "dead on arrival," with a typo -- am I close?

[Shmuel Gerber]

6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

. . . whereas all subsequent editions appear to refer only to instances in which the proposal has already been introduced.

For the time being, I'll accept Shmuel's word for it that this motion to "suspend the rules and agree to" can still be used in either instance. 

The subsequent editions do indeed refer to both types of proposal. You just have to know how to properly read those dots in "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution . . ."

[Clurichan]

11 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I'm guessing that these mean "out of order" and "dead on arrival," with a typo -- am I close?

Divide (or Divisible?) on Demand, a dead-end idea as it turns out...

[Transpower]

Answering the original question:  the chair could assume a motion and then say "Without objection...."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 13-33.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think it's safe to assume that it could be used for either.

On 11/25/2016 at 1:46 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The subsequent editions do indeed refer to both types of proposal. You just have to know how to properly read those dots in "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution . . ."

 If not, that rule could easily be suspended with the motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with Suspending the Rules and agreeing to the the resolution _________, and to suspend those rules, and to agree to the resolution.

[Bruce Lages]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think it's safe to assume that it could be used for either.

 If not, that rule could easily be suspended with the motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with Suspending the Rules and agreeing to the the resolution _________, and to suspend those rules, and to agree to the resolution.

Can one really nest multiple suspend the rules statements within each other in the same motion?

[Gary Novosielski]

29 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said:

Can one really nest multiple suspend the rules statements within each other in the same motion?

 

I'm inferring that was what Shmuel meant when he said:

 

On 11/25/2016 at 1:46 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

You just have to know how to properly read those dots in "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution . . ."

But I doubt it would be necessary.  

After all, Suspend-the-Rules-and-<do something> motions (which, it is worth noting, say rules in the plural), are intended to suspend all rules that would otherwise interfere with the doing of that something.   So it seems to me that a motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree to.... would automatically have the effect of suspending as a group all (suspendible) rules that would otherwise prevent its use in the instant parliamentary situation.  

Nesting would seem unnecessary.

[Bruce Lages]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 

Nesting would seem unnecessary.

That's what I thought. Suspend the rules should, by definition, include any and all intermediate steps necessary to achieve the stated outcome.

[Dan Honemann]

 

Will someone please explain to me what all this business about "nesting" and "intermediate steps" has got to do with the question as to whether or not a motion to suspend the rules can be used to secure the adoption, without debate or amendment, of a proposal not previously introduced as well as one which has already been introduced?

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

Will someone please explain to me what all this business about "nesting" and "intermediate steps" has got to do with the question as to whether or not a motion to suspend the rules can be used to secure the adoption, without debate or amendment, of a proposal not previously introduced as well as one which has already been introduced?

I think we've come to the conclusion that it doesn't have anything to do with it.  That is, the motion must be allowed for both.

The "nesting" referred to the hypothetical situation where there did exist a rule that said the motion could be used only for resolutions previously introduced.  In that case, to use it on a resolution that had not been, it would have been necessary to suspend that rule as well.  

But since a single motion to Suspend is presumed to apply to all suspendible rules that might otherwise interfere, none of that is necessary.

[Dan Honemann]

If there is such a thing as presumptive "nesting", wouldn't a rule such as the one which says that a motion to Suspend the Rules requires a second be rather meaningless, since it should be presumed that one of the rules sought to be suspended is the rule that a second is required?

[Gary Novosielski]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If there is such a thing as presumptive "nesting", wouldn't a rule such as the one which says that a motion to Suspend the Rules requires a second be rather meaningless, since it should be presumed that one of the rules sought to be suspended is the rule that a second is required?

Yes, but nothing is suspended unless the motion is carried, by which time it would presumably have been seconded.  

The presumptive nesting is a little different,  It conceptually consists of an "outer" motion, i.e. one seeking to suspend the outer set of rules that prevent the making of the "inner" motion, which is a motion to agree without debate or amendment, and then having suspended the outer rules, agreeing to passage.

If there were a rule preventing in certain circumstances the use of Suspend and Agree, that would not prevent the outer motion from being considered, and if passed, suspending all interfering rules.

If that's just too convoluted a procedure for anyone to be comfortable with, there is always a fall-back position of two motions:

• To Suspend the rules that prevent the use of Suspend and Agree on a given motion; and then, if passed,
• To Suspend and Agree to the given motion.

This is admittedly moot, since I haven't seen anyone contending that such a rule is actually in force in the 11th ed.

 

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

All those in favor of suspending this whole discussion, say ay-ay-ay.

[Bruce Lages]

{ay [ay (ay) ]}

[Rev Ed]

On 11/24/2016 at 0:00 PM, jstackpo said:

Which can put someone in a logical bind:  If I wish to defeat the motion but also don't think the motion is worth talking about, there is no way I can express that with my vote.  If I vote "Yes" I am contributing to adopting the motion; if I vote "No" I am contributing to the possibility that discussion will ensue.

The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order.  Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

I agree with this.  Using the example of painting the clubhouse, I may be in favour of painting the clubhouse, but not with regards to the colour, or when we should be doing the work, then I would have to vote against the motion as it does not allow me to debate the motion or offer an amendment to the motion.