Order of Precedence

[Guest Stephen_V]

Hello everyone,

 

I am a new student of Robert's Rules of Order and I was hoping someone could answer a question I have.

Robert's Rules sets out an order of precedence of 13 ranking motions. Can anyone tell me how this order was arrived at? Is it based on some notion of practicality obvious common sense, or is it somewhat arbitrary? For example, why is the motion to postpone to a certain time higher than to refer, and why is order of the day lower than raising a question of privilege? 

Thank you for any responses!

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 minutes ago, Guest Stephen_V said:

Can anyone tell me how this order was arrived at? Is it based on some notion of practicality obvious common sense, or is it somewhat arbitrary?

Yes. :-)

7 minutes ago, Guest Stephen_V said:

For example, why is the motion to postpone to a certain time higher than to refer,

Because a motion to refer can be postponed, but a motion to postpone cannot be referred.

8 minutes ago, Guest Stephen_V said:

and why is order of the day lower than raising a question of privilege? 

Because, aside from a recess or adjournment, an order of the day does not interfere with a question of privilege.

[Joshua Katz]

There is a paragraph in RONR which endeavors to explain the idea behind precedence. I can't quite recall where it is, though.

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Because a motion to refer can be postponed, but a motion to postpone cannot be referred.

And of course what I mean is that the motion to refer can be postponed together with the main motion. But it would be absurd to refer to a committee the question on postponing the main motion.

[Shmuel Gerber]

9 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

There is a paragraph in RONR which endeavors to explain the idea behind precedence. I can't quite recall where it is, though.

You're probably thinking of page 63, lines 1-5.

[Guest saa]

This response of Mr. Gerber is not  clear , at all to me , but I may well be missing  something ,and often am  where   Roberts is concerned .Putting aside completely  the initial response  from  Mr. Gerber ,  " Because   a motion to refer can be ........." , and considering that a motion to refer ,or one of postpone ,can be apparently aimed at , and apply to  the main motion: 

Why is it, at all ,that  it would be absurd  were the motion to refer of higher precedence   than the motion to postpone  .  Indeed , why is  it that one order of these two motions  is  any more absurd than the other . Arguably  it would seem that the motion to refer would rightly be above the motion to postpone  . Both have the effect of delaying the  determination of a proposal  . That being so ,and  in that both can be focused on the main motion ,  regardless  that  other lower  subsidiary  motions are in play , why not have the assembly potentially  armed  with more information in eventual decision  making  ( refer ) ,when the matter comes up again before the assembly ? 

Of course , something must be awry in this analysis  as surely it cannot  be so that the order is arguably or logically  upside down  . Waiting to be straightened out  and set aright and looking forward to that ! .Thank-you. 

 

 

[Joshua Katz]

36 minutes ago, Guest saa said:

Why is it, at all ,that  it would be absurd  were the motion to refer of higher precedence   than the motion to postpone  .

When postpone (to a certain time) is pending, the assembly is deciding whether or not it will put off the decision. To move, before that is decided, to send it to someone else, seems illogical to me. We should do one or the other of these, but if the motion to refer is adopted, the motion to postpone would still be pending - i.e. the assembly would be making a decision about a matter which is no longer in its hand. 

On the other hand, when refer is pending, and postpone is moved and, suppose, adopted - the motion remains in the hand of the assembly, just put off to a later time. To now consider the pending motion to refer makes sense to me.

Alternatively, as RONR explains, the hierarchy reflects the steps an assembly would take as it considers a motion. Maybe someone wants to kill it (postpone indefinitely) - but wait, we can try to save it by amending it! But we can't figure out how to amend it - send it to a committee! Well, instead of sending it to a committee, maybe we just want to talk about it between meetings and fix it ourselves - so move to postpone. etc.

[Guest saa]

Thanks J :

Appreciate the response ,but although the order appears to  make sense to you , it does not so clearly make sense  to me . And in relation to your comment  :

" ....but if the motion to refer is adopted , the motion to postpone would still be pending - i.e, the assembly would be making a decision about a matter which is no longer in its hand ".

This does not seem to follow at all  " no longer in its hand "(?). If the motion to refer were carried the matter would then go for consideration  to a Committee, and then to the assembly . The matter would then be before the assembly and the vote to postpone  would be pending .  Were that so the advantage  would arguably   be that the assembly would have that additional information, from the Committee ,   to make  a  decision to postpone  further ,or  defeat that motion and go back to the main motion or otherwise  . 

Both of these motions ( refer and postpone )  have the effect of delaying the matter to a later time - the motion to refer, however, allows that better information may  be  brought  to hand , if any , when the matter is again  before the assembly ,after the delay is over .

It  is stated  in RONR p. 61 , ln 12 -14 , that this system and ordering of precedence  has  gradually "evolved  through experience " . And  that  the subsidiary motions are described  in RONR  in  terms of what " may convey," how the order was arrived at ( p. 63, ln 1-5 ). But this seems vague in the extreme . It certainly would be interesting to have an original copy of RONR to see what the starting point  was in the first edition ,and if any explanatory discussion  is available in that  text  respecting order of precedence . In addition the procedural practices  of the House of Representatives may  be informative as these  RONR rules ,as no doubt you well know  ,were initially  based on the House rules  ?  

Thanks a lot for the analysis  .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest saa]

PS :

  2015 Rules of House , p. 30 Rule XVI

4. (a) Precedence of Motions :

(1) To adjourn 

(2) To lay on the Table 

(3) For the previous  question

(4) To pospone to a certain day 

(5) To refer 

(6) To amand 

(7) To postpone indefinitely 

  

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Guest saa said:

It  is stated  in RONR p. 61 , ln 12 -14 , that this system and ordering of precedence  has  gradually "evolved  through experience " .

I must admit I was astonished to read this. Guest Saa, you know for a fact that different sources that existed in the 1800s had different orders of precedence, and the order which General Robert selected was the one he thought most useful for non-legislative societies. Of the motions you mention, there is specific text that mentions the problem then Lieutenant-Colonel Robert had to grapple with in connection with these motions.

1 hour ago, Guest saa said:

It certainly would be interesting to have an original copy of RONR to see what the starting point  was in the first edition..

You can see it at Project Gutenberg and knock yourself out. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9097

[Guest saa]

Thank - you Zev - for all of the response  and I did read the introduction to RONR and was aware that the General reviewed various sources in the 1800's . What I was not aware of was that  there is a " specific text "concerning  these two motions ( refer and postpone ) and  that  L. Col . Robert had to grapple with them as a problem . That seems to be the location of gold for my inquiry . And the fact that you indicate it was a problem suggests to me that perhaps some of the other sources in those days did not follow the RONR ordering and must have had their  there own  rationale  for that . In any event all of this exceptionally helpful . If the "specific text " you mention is not the Project Gutenberg text would you please let me know . In the meantime I will be deep study and  reviewing this very welcome resource .

Truly obliged for this informed response Mr Zev .

 

[Richard Brown]

Guest saa, you might find it noteworthy that even Jefferson's Manual (A Manual of Parliamentary Practice) by Thomas Jefferson, published in 1801 for use in the U.S. Senate, has essentially the same ranking order of motions, especially as to the relationship between the motion to postpone and the motion to refer  or commit.  So did the official rules of the House and Senate.  (Jefferson's Manual, pages 66-78, Section XXXIII).  A noteworthy exception is that Jefferson ranks the motion to postpone indefinitely higher than most other motions, rather than as the lowest of the subsidiary motions as most authorities do now.

I would also point out that it is not only RONR (and all of its predecessors) that ranks the motion to postpone definitely above the motion to refer:  I believe just about all respected parliamentary authorities treat it the same way.  The AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, for example, which is probably the 2nd most popular parliamentary authority in the U.S., treats it the same.  So does Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure.

One more point:  You can refer to us by any respectful names you choose, but if you want enhance your chances of being "accepted" by the other posters, rather than being considered some eccentric nuisance,  you might follow the same custom we all use when referring to each other:  Use our NAMES, not initials.  The only regular contributor of this forum who uses initials is J.J. (Jonathan Jacobs), a well known and very well respected PRP who has chosen to go by that nickname  and forum name for at least the 17 or 18 years I have known him.  And it's "J.J.", not "J".

[Guest SAA]

Thank you Mr Brown . There is a lot of helpful  data here that you note , and all worth consideration  .And its impressive that  so many others have followed the same path as RONR for order of precedence . Nevertheless  ,I continue to  ponder what Mr. Zev so helpfully raised - the text in which L. Col . Robert wrestled  with the two motions under consideration- refer and postpone  . I  would be much  interested in the detail of that wrestle . 

And I certainly  do not want to be considered  an eccentric and much want to be "accepted " by other posters - very much so . My  Initials SAA provided, although but a mere  starter  poster,  unlike Mr. "JJ". I hope the lack of a  full given  name does not  necessarily relegate one to the " eccentric " bin , but that substance has some part to play.

Thanks again.

[Richard Brown]

47 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

Thank you Mr Brown . There is a lot of helpful  data here that you note , and all worth consideration  .And its impressive that  so many others have followed the same path as RONR for order of precedence . Nevertheless  ,I continue to  ponder what Mr. Zev so helpfully raised - the text in which L. Col . Robert wrestled  with the two motions under consideration- refer and postpone  . I  would be much  interested in the detail of that wrestle . . . .

You might note that Jefferson's Manual was published a full 75 years before the first edition of Henry Robert's manual.  fwiw, I don't think I have ever seen a manual that suggests reversing the order of precedence between the motion to commit and the motion to postpone to a definite time.

47 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

And I certainly  do not want to be considered  an eccentric and much want to be "accepted " by other posters - very much so . My  Initials SAA provided, although but a mere  starter  poster,  unlike Mr. "JJ". I hope the lack of a  full given  name does not  necessarily relegate one to the " eccentric " bin , but that substance has some part to play.

I wasn't referring to your own name (or initials.... I had not given much thought to whether it's a name or initials).  I see now that your name is apparently Stephen V but you have switched to using the name "Guest saa".    I was referring to the fact that I believed you were consistently (up until your last two posts) referring to of us by just one initial, such as your reference to Joshua Katz as "J".  However, upon reviewing this thread, unless I'm overlooking something, it seems that is the only time you did that, unless you were doing it in another thread.  So, please accept my apology for that comment about referring to us by a single letter initial rather than by our names.  

Edited to add:  I notice that the original post in this thread was by a guest named "Stephen V".   Then "Guest saa" (lower case letters) weighed in.  And now we have "Guest SAA" (upper case letters).  I'm assuming all three names are actually the same person.  However, for the future, I hope Stephen V (and all other guests) will stick to the same name for all follow up comments.  Otherwise, the rest of us have no idea whether we are talking to the original poster or to others who have weighed in, possibly with what is actually a different issue.  So, please be consistent and use the same name throughout a thread.... or join the forum so your name always appears the same way!

Edited September 19, 2018 at 05:53 PM by Richard Brown
Misc. edits and added last paragraph

[jstackpo]

A quotation from Jefferson's Manual (page 129 in this edition) goes a long way toward resolving the difficulties that poster Stephen V/saa seems to have encountered...

>>>>>>>

And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members.

>>>>>>

It is that caprice and captiousness that we here are all striving to eliminate.

[Guest Stephen_V]

Mr. Brown,

Just for clarity, I am the original poster of this question and have not participated under any other name. While I am quite new to Robert's Rules, I can assume that participating in any type of meeting (be it in person or on an online forum) under multiple assumed identities would be out of order.

Thank you to all who have weighed in on this question. While it seems that the consensus of experts is that there is a sound logic behind the order to the ranking of motions, I was curious to know if any of you experts could make a reasonable argument that the order could possibly be different, though not necessarily improved. My goal is not to identify any weakness in the ordering of motions - I simply want to understand why the present order is as it presently stands. As previously stated, I am quite new to RONR yet I have been told that understanding the rules can be enhanced through questioning them. Mr. Brown, do you perhaps recall the reasoning behind Jefferson's ranking of the motion to postpose indefinitely so much higher than RONR does? 

Again, thank you to all for your contributions to this conversation! 

- Stephen

[Guest Stephen_V]

7 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

A quotation from Jefferson's Manual (page 129 in this edition) goes a long way toward resolving the difficulties that poster Stephen V/saa seems to have encountered...

>>>>>>>

And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or captiousness of the members.

>>>>>>

It is that caprice and captiousness that we here are all striving to eliminate.

Well, it seems that an answer was provided while I was typing my question! Thank you for this!

[Guest SAA]

Thanks again Mr. Brown 

I only first posted after Mr .Gerber made  his last post  . Mr Steven V was the original poster , not me .

I am not ready to come out of the "parliamentarian closet " just yet with my full name and understand now , that is not necessary in any event  to do that .Thanks .  

On considering all the other Rules Books that you mentioned I was curious as well if in each instance if  those authors  too ,wrestled with the issue of which to  list first , postpone or refer . Perhaps it was more of , and no disrespect  meant to any of those worthy authors that you identified   , "monkey see monkey do" .

 Was it perhaps a non wrestling circumstance   ( Mr. Zev ) of merely following the  much  esteemed  leader , L. Col. Robert .  Or maybe L. Col.  Robert  was the only wrestler  to wrestle with this . . But of course maybe too,  it was general  wrestling all around ?  Who can poosibly say with all this time gone past . 

 I appreciate you kind words . 

 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

The fact that the order was derived and maintained over centuries of use, by a variety of authorities means that it has a great deal of legitimacy proven over time.

However, Guest saa questions the logic behind the order of precedence. I find myself convinced by the arguments that have been posted earlier, but will post another explanation in case Guest saa finds it helpful. George Demeter, in his Demeter's Manual of Parliamentary Law and Procedure, states the following about hte rank order of the subsidiary motions: "it was decided to base their rank on the speed and wisdom with which each motion can accomplish business. In other words, the nearer to completion a subsidiary motion brings the business before the house, the higher its rank."

Specifically to the two motions that are the focus of this discussion, he says, about Postpone Definitely, "when the time to which is was postponed is reached, the question is automatically taken up for consideration, thus ensuring accomplishment of business". As for committees: "a committee requires time to organize and may not report for a session or two and, logically, has lower rank than the above four motions which accelerate business."

To be clear, Demeter's order of precedence is the same as in RONR.

[Guest Zev]

Quote

A careful reading of these books showed that it was not an easy matter to decide what was parliamentary law. ... (sic) For instance, both Jefferson and Cushing gave an equal rank to the motions for the Previous Question, and to Postpone Definitely, and Indefinitely, and to Commit; the House of Representatives makes them rank thus: Previous Question, Postpone Definitely, Commit, Amend, and Postpone Indefinitely at the foot of the list; and the Senate does not allow the Previous Question and instead of placing Indefinitely Postpone at the foot, it puts it at the head of the list.

RONR, page xli.

The House of Representatives ranks the motions in this manner. In Jefferson's Manual, however, if any of the four motions is moved, the others cannot be entertained until the first one is resolved. It is this aspect of the rank of motions that I was referring to. You are not the first person to question why these things are what they are. Differences in motions, their rank, or even whether they are allowed, has everything to do with the nature of the assembly, custom, volume of business, and frequency of meetings. Also, there is nothing particularly nefarious about not agreeing with the rank of motions. Thousands of organizations over hundreds of years of experience is what has set them in their current places. For a different rank all that is needed is a Special Rule Of Order, and off you go. If an organization contemplates a different order, I would suggest a Special Rule Of Order with a time limit that would expire, say in one or two years, and then revert back to the standard order. It would be an interesting experiment and might actually work depending on the nature of the organization. Good luck.

[Guest SAA]

Oh , joy and delight😃 !

Thank-you Mr, Zev for the  illuminating  , informed ,and scholarly  contribution. From here on in  I will refer and  remember it as: "  Zev's Gold ".Those before L .Col. Robert ( Jefferson and Cushing )  giving 4 of the subsidiary motions equal  ( imagine that )  rank  . This is the actual historical setting it seems - for the subsequent  wrestling match ,or  perhaps coin flip for  some , to determine how these 4 would be ordered . Maybe the House of Rep. wrestled and L. Col. Robert's followed the outcome of that event ,  and simply went with that  outcome . But it seems Mr Zev is the best authority on  this  entire subject  and can answer.

.And thank you as well Mr Zev  for the comment about "nothing particularly  nefarious " about  not agreeing with the rank of motions ( RONR ). I must  confess it seems a bit intimidating to question some (  or any ) of the  content from the self proclaimed , and said to be universally proclaimed ,gold standard  for meeting rules.  5.5 million copies  sold . And  surely a million more since  2011 .That must make for  quite  a stack  of gold  itself ,  and no doubt at all ,well deserved  ! 

My impression  of RONR is that it is indeed a great work. It surely is. But  it is also  important to  probe and question so that the accuracy  of things comes out. So that  and one can actually see and assess  the antecedents of various RONR  propositions  , precedence  of motions and otherwise . This forum and the many who contribute to it certainly help most effectively in these inquiries .

ZEV's GOLD  !

 

 

 

[Guest SAA]

Zev's GOLD that is , first identified by L .Col Robert .

[Guest Stephen_V]

20 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

RONR, page xli.

The House of Representatives ranks the motions in this manner. In Jefferson's Manual, however, if any of the four motions is moved, the others cannot be entertained until the first one is resolved. It is this aspect of the rank of motions that I was referring to. You are not the first person to question why these things are what they are. Differences in motions, their rank, or even whether they are allowed, has everything to do with the nature of the assembly, custom, volume of business, and frequency of meetings. Also, there is nothing particularly nefarious about not agreeing with the rank of motions. Thousands of organizations over hundreds of years of experience is what has set them in their current places. For a different rank all that is needed is a Special Rule Of Order, and off you go. If an organization contemplates a different order, I would suggest a Special Rule Of Order with a time limit that would expire, say in one or two years, and then revert back to the standard order. It would be an interesting experiment and might actually work depending on the nature of the organization. Good luck.

Just wanted to thank you for your enlightening contributions to this discussion! Much appreciated!