Confusion on a motion

[Tom Coronite]

Watching a video on parliamentary procedure raised this question for me:

During debate on a motion, I am confused as to what the actual wording of the motion is, so I need clarification. Am I raising a question of privilege? Parliamentary inquiry? Something else?

[Chris Harrison]

I believe you would make a Request for Information.

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, Tom Coronite said:

Watching a video on parliamentary procedure raised this question for me:

During debate on a motion, I am confused as to what the actual wording of the motion is, so I need clarification. Am I raising a question of privilege? Parliamentary inquiry? Something else?

I think it could potentially be any of these. It also might be a Request for Any Other Privilege, or perhaps even a Point of Order. I would ask that you clarify the following:

• Why are you confused as to what the actual wording of the motion is?
• Is the nature of the confusion on the wording such that it makes the type of motion unclear, or in some other manner makes the parliamentary rules for the motion ambiguous?
• What action(s) do you wish to be taken to clear up this confusion?

An example of exactly the sort of situation you have in mind would also be extremely helpful.

Edited April 26, 2018 at 10:02 PM by Josh Martin

[Tom Coronite]

The video I was watching presented a scenario where a member is unclear on exactly what the debate is about. The presenter stated one would make a parliamentary inquiry to have the chair restate the motion. I suppose the scenario is one where the discussion has gone off track somewhat, and it's unclear what the assembly is discussing.

I was surprised to see it explained as a parliamentary inquiry, expecting it would be more of a question of privilege.

As an example of what I have in mind, suppose the discussion gets a bit sidetracked with a pending motion of "let's paint the church red" as people discuss the cost of paint, which leads to a discussion on the budget, which leads to talk of amending the budget. Typical church meeting.

So I haven't exactly been paying attention, hear these other issues, and am confused as to what exactly is the pending motion. I would, therefore, raise __________?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

… a point of order, I would think, that the debate is no longer germane. That should lead the chair to restating the question, or you could make that request as part of the point.

[Josh Martin]

56 minutes ago, Tom Coronite said:

The video I was watching presented a scenario where a member is unclear on exactly what the debate is about. The presenter stated one would make a parliamentary inquiry to have the chair restate the motion. I suppose the scenario is one where the discussion has gone off track somewhat, and it's unclear what the assembly is discussing.

I was surprised to see it explained as a parliamentary inquiry, expecting it would be more of a question of privilege.

As an example of what I have in mind, suppose the discussion gets a bit sidetracked with a pending motion of "let's paint the church red" as people discuss the cost of paint, which leads to a discussion on the budget, which leads to talk of amending the budget. Typical church meeting.

So I haven't exactly been paying attention, hear these other issues, and am confused as to what exactly is the pending motion. I would, therefore, raise __________?

Based on these facts, I think the appropriate motion is the second form of the motion to read papers. Specifically, the member should rise and state “I request that the pending motion be reread.”

“The foregoing paragraph applies only to papers or documents that are not before the assembly for action. When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it. Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly. But whenever any member requests that a document that is before the assembly be read—obviously for information and not for delay—and no one objects, the chair normally should direct that it be read. If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read. If a member was absent from the hall when the paper under consideration was read—even though absent on duty—he cannot insist on its being read again; in this case, the convenience of the assembly is more important than that of a single member.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 299)

I agree with you that a parliamentary inquiry is not the proper motion in the situation described. That might be better in a situation (for instance) where a series of motions was pending, and not where a motion was immediately pending. I also do not think Question of Privilege is the appropriate tool in this instance.

With that said, I do not think the chair should be a stickler about this, and would suggest that the chair reread the motion regardless of what tool the member uses to make that request.

44 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

… a point of order, I would think, that the debate is no longer germane. That should lead the chair to restating the question, or you could make that request as part of the point.

Yes, but Mr. Coronite’s question is specifically regarding a situation in which the member does not know what the pending question is. In such a case, it would be rather difficult for the member to determine whether debate was germane.

Edited April 26, 2018 at 11:32 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

It seems to me that a parliamentary inquiry is perfectly proper in a situation such as has been described. Some of the other methods are probably okay as well, but I personally would prefer the simple parliamentary inquiry, "Mr. Chairman, what is it that we are voting on?" or "What is the motion that we are debating?"

 

[Josh Martin]

16 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

It seems to me that a parliamentary inquiry is perfectly proper in a situation such as has been described. Some of the other methods are probably okay as well, but I personally would prefer the simple parliamentary inquiry, "Mr. Chairman, what is it that we are voting on?" or "What is the motion that we are debating?"

As I think on it further, I think I am inclined to agree. I think my confusion arose from the fact that the original question stated that the member was confused as to the “actual wording” of the question, which would seem to suggest that the member knows generally what motion is pending, but he needs further clarification on the exact wording. I think this is certainly best addressed by a request that the motion be reread.

The example provided, on the other hand, suggests that the confusion is greater than this, and the member does not know even the subject of the motion the assembly is discussing. In this event, a parliamentary inquiry regarding what motion is pending seems perfectly appropriate.

In any event, I also still would suggest that the chair reread the motion regardless of what tool the member uses to make that request. It is the chairman’s responsibility to ensure that all members are clear on what is the pending question. If it becomes apparent that members are not clear on this, the chair should make every effort to clarify the issue.

Edited April 27, 2018 at 05:49 PM by Josh Martin

[Tom Coronite]

Thank you for the helpful and educational insights!