Laura Meade Posted July 31, 2017 at 06:11 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 at 06:11 PM My questions refer to TP #40, which is "Extend time for consideration of pending question, or time until announced or scheduled adjournment or recess". It is classified as an incidental motion that is not debatable or amendable, among other characteristics. Is it only an incidental motion with no debate or amendment if the privileged motion "Call for orders of the day" is pending or if there is a set time on the agenda for its consideration? If there is a set time on the agenda for consideration, is the debatable and amendable subsidiary motion to Extend the Limits of Debate then not in order? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 31, 2017 at 06:57 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 at 06:57 PM 1 hour ago, Libran said: My questions refer to TP #40, which is "Extend time for consideration of pending question, or time until announced or scheduled adjournment or recess". It is classified as an incidental motion that is not debatable or amendable, among other characteristics. Is it only an incidental motion with no debate or amendment if the privileged motion "Call for orders of the day" is pending or if there is a set time on the agenda for its consideration? If there is a set time on the agenda for consideration, is the debatable and amendable subsidiary motion to Extend the Limits of Debate then not in order? Thanks. What is TP #40?. I would not call incidental when applied to a debatable motion. Also, a Call For the Orders of the Day would end debate of the motion, at least temporarily. Even if there was a time set for a motion, Extend the Limits of Debate could be adopted, as it would effectively suspend the rules. Note that an order of the day can be set aside by a 2/3 vote I would note a motion extending, or reducing, the length of debate would be an incidental main motion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Meade Posted July 31, 2017 at 07:40 PM Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 at 07:40 PM Tinted Pages, motion #40. It sort of discusses it on p. 223, ll. 22-29, under the Call for Orders of the Day motion. I initially thought the subsidiary Extend Limits of Debate would apply to any pending main motion, but this makes it seem like even if the privileged motion Call for the Orders of the Day was not pending, the chair would have to treat it like Suspend the Rules to extend the time for consideration (hence, not allowing debate or amendment on the motion to extend debate). Do I understand that right? And at the end of that time, is the main motion then able to be referred or postponed, since the motion to Extend was an incidental motion, or must the main motion be voted on immediately, like with the subsidiary motion? Would the subsidiary motion to Extend Debate ever be allowed if there is a set time on the agenda for consideration of a motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 31, 2017 at 08:20 PM Report Share Posted July 31, 2017 at 08:20 PM 1 hour ago, Libran said: My questions refer to TP #40, which is "Extend time for consideration of pending question, or time until announced or scheduled adjournment or recess". It is classified as an incidental motion that is not debatable or amendable, among other characteristics. Is it only an incidental motion with no debate or amendment if the privileged motion "Call for orders of the day" is pending or if there is a set time on the agenda for its consideration? If there is a set time on the agenda for consideration, is the debatable and amendable subsidiary motion to Extend the Limits of Debate then not in order? Thanks. The motion to which you refer is applicable only when the orders of the day are called for or announced, and its adoption effects a change in the prescribed order of business (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 222-223). The subsidiary motion to Extend Limits of Debate (which, by the way, is not debatable) does no such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Meade Posted August 1, 2017 at 02:26 PM Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2017 at 02:26 PM Thanks for clarifying, Mr. Honemann. And thanks for the reminder about the subsidiary motion not being debatable. I know better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts