Guest SAA Posted November 29, 2018 at 07:51 AM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 07:51 AM A main motion is made to refer a matter for study to a special committee . Is that main motion subject to a subsidiary motion to refer that proposal , to a special committee ,for study , respecting the proposed range of work of that initial committee ? This is apparently intended to cause delay in the work of first identified special committee, by a committee constituted with members hostile to the underlying objective . Thanks for any responses . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 29, 2018 at 08:33 AM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 08:33 AM If a motion is intended to cause delay, the chair should rule it out of order as dilatory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 29, 2018 at 01:24 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 01:24 PM Who are authorized to name the members to the Special Committee (the first and second one)? If it is the members who name the Committee members then they can prevent the delaying tactic by choosing people who are in favor of the objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 29, 2018 at 02:40 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 02:40 PM 6 hours ago, Guest SAA said: A main motion is made to refer a matter for study to a special committee . Is that main motion subject to a subsidiary motion to refer that proposal , to a special committee ,for study , respecting the proposed range of work of that initial committee ? This is apparently intended to cause delay in the work of first identified special committee, by a committee constituted with members hostile to the underlying objective . Yes, an incidental main motion to refer is subject to a subsidiary motion to refer. Unless your rules specify the manner in which special committees are to be appointed, however, it is up to the assembly itself to determine this. So the assembly is free to select different committee members, or to to simply defeat this motion. 1 hour ago, Chris Harrison said: Who are authorized to name the members to the Special Committee (the first and second one)? If it is the members who name the Committee members then they can prevent the delaying tactic by choosing people who are in favor of the objective. Well, whoever is authorized to appoint special committees is presumably the same in both cases, so the second motion will probably make little difference in any event. 6 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: If a motion is intended to cause delay, the chair should rule it out of order as dilatory. Yes, but the chair is generally supposed to give members the benefit of the doubt in such matters and only rule a motion out of order as dilatory if he is certain it is intended to cause delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner Posted November 29, 2018 at 03:27 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 03:27 PM 45 minutes ago, Josh Martin said: Yes, but the chair is generally supposed to give members the benefit of the doubt in such matters and only rule a motion out of order as dilatory if he is certain it is intended to cause delay. And I would question the chair's authority to mitigate delay which takes place outside of a meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted November 29, 2018 at 05:22 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 05:22 PM I'm not sure I understand the question/situation. Do I understand correctly that there is a motion to refer a certain matter to a certain committee and someone desires to amend the motion to refer to send the matter to a different committee rather than the one originally proposed? If that's the situation, it seems in order to me, provided it isn't a matter which should be referred to a standing committee. Also, had the matter already been referred to a committee that had already started work on the matter? if so, that presents a problem because that first committee must be discharged from further consideration of the referred motion/matter. A motion to discharge a committee can be subject to a special vote requirement. More information on this situation would be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted November 29, 2018 at 05:35 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 05:35 PM Richard - My impression was that the assembly wanted to create a second committee to consider the original (incidental) main motion to send a matter to a special committee, i.e., refer the referral. The purpose seemed to be to set the parameters for that special committee's work. Although Josh has said that it is in order to apply the subsidiary motion to refer to an incidental main motion to refer, it seems that it would be more efficient to just amend the incidental main motion to refer to include whatever parameters are appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 29, 2018 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted November 29, 2018 at 06:01 PM (edited) 2 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said: And I would question the chair's authority to mitigate delay which takes place outside of a meeting. Yes, I agree that there is particular difficulty in applying the dilatory rule to the motion to Commit (and certain other motions, such as to Postpone to a Certain Time), since the intent and effect of these motions, even when used properly, will be to delay action on the main motion. 39 minutes ago, Richard Brown said: I'm not sure I understand the question/situation. Do I understand correctly that there is a motion to refer a certain matter to a certain committee and someone desires to amend the motion to refer to send the matter to a different committee rather than the one originally proposed? If that's the situation, it seems in order to me, provided it isn't a matter which should be referred to a standing committee. It appears that the intent is to make an incidental main motion to refer a particular matter to a special committee. A subsidiary motion to refer will then be made in order to refer this main motion to a different special committee, for the purpose of working out some details related to the other committee’s charge and instructions. 27 minutes ago, Bruce Lages said: Although Josh has said that it is in order to apply the subsidiary motion to refer to an incidental main motion to refer, it seems that it would be more efficient to just amend the incidental main motion to refer to include whatever parameters are appropriate. Yes, I agree. Edited November 29, 2018 at 06:02 PM by Josh Martin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted November 30, 2018 at 11:34 PM Report Share Posted November 30, 2018 at 11:34 PM Thanks to all responders . Josh Martin has provided the answer to the core issue . " ....an incidental main motion to refer is subject to a subsidiary motion to refer ." The intention behind the subsidiary motion was suspected but never specifically expressed . And the provided responses seem to agree that motions that follow in this order are not invariably absurd or dilatory . They may, however , appear awkward, or less effective that other options . If any one has good cause to disagree with this summary would you please advise with reasons .These motions are expected to arise next Monday at a meeting Thanks a lot ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted December 1, 2018 at 12:04 AM Report Share Posted December 1, 2018 at 12:04 AM Let us (me, anyway) know how things work out... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts