Motion to not consider

[Guest R Harrison]

My organization has an agenda for the next meeting that incluedes several motions carried forward from notice of motions of the previous meeting, and it seems someone added to this agenda just before these motions:

THAT the notices of motion numbered (a) through (k) listed on this agenda not be considered at this time.

Is this legit? I can understand defering the motions one at a time in proper turn, but can a group move to simply not consider a motion and without deferring it or failing it?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

There is a motion  Objection to the Consideration of a Question  (§26 ) but it only applies to a question that has just been stated by the chair and upon which debate has not yet begun.  It can't be applied to a block of motions and would have to be moved on each of those questions in turn as they become pending.

And once previous notice of a motion has been done, it can't be undone.  Even if those motions were deleted from the agenda, it would still be in order to move them under New Business, since the previous notice is still valid.

[Guest R Harrison]

Thank you so much for the quick reply.

The chair in this organization knows even less about procedure than I do. If the chair insists on grouping these together and a 2/3 majority prevails to sustain the objection for consideration, would I have any recourse in the meeting beyond a point of order?

I am an elected member of a municipal body and my colleagues are attempting to stifle my ability to make any motions for personal reasons.

[jstackpo]

Raising a point of order is indeed your last line of defense, in a parliamentary context.  Well, an appeal of the subsequent chair's ruling is the last last recourse.

Since you are part of a "municipal body", there may be rules in the ordinances about procedure in your meetings not included in Roberts or superseding RONR's rules -- you might check there to see what else you might do. Meanwhile, here is a suggestion for a (belated) New Years or early Valentines Day gift for your chair or your colleagues

Get him/them a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link:

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, Guest R Harrison said:

My organization has an agenda for the next meeting that incluedes several motions carried forward from notice of motions of the previous meeting, and it seems someone added to this agenda just before these motions:

THAT the notices of motion numbered (a) through (k) listed on this agenda not be considered at this time.

Is this legit? I can understand defering the motions one at a time in proper turn, but can a group move to simply not consider a motion and without deferring it or failing it?

A motion to Suspend the Rules, which would require a 2/3 vote, could most likely accomplish the member’s desired objective.

[Joshua Katz]

It is also worth noting that, absent rules to the contrary, there is no agenda yet for the next meeting. There is a piece of paper with the word "agenda" on it, but until adopted by the body, it is not the agenda. Prior to its amendment, OP can move to strike the item in question because it is absurd.

[Guest R Harrison]

I am amazed with the quick replies. Thank you!

S26 p267 ll25-30:

If in the agenda staff had supplemented these motions previously provided as notice of motions with notes and recommendations, would this be considered that the debate has begun?

 

[George Mervosh]

3 minutes ago, Guest R Harrison said:

I am amazed with the quick replies. Thank you!

S26 p267 ll25-30:

If in the agenda staff had supplemented these motions previously provided as notice of motions with notes and recommendations, would this be considered that the debate has begun?

 

No.  From what I can see from your facts, the motion will need to be moved, seconded (unless coming from a committee) and stated by the chair before debate is even allowable.  I gather from your facts they have not been moved at all in a meeting.  Also note, with regards an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, that the objection cannot be applied to incidental main motions, such as a motion amend the bylaws, or a motion to amend some other previously adopted motion(s).

[Guest R Harrison]

Perfect. That clarifies perfectly.

And if a member moves to object to the consideration before the motion is stated by the chair then the objection for consideration would be out of order?

[George Mervosh]

11 minutes ago, Guest R Harrison said:

Perfect. That clarifies perfectly.

And if a member moves to object to the consideration before the motion is stated by the chair then the objection for consideration would be out of order?

I think so. RONR notes that the objection is similar to a point of order in some respects.  I think timing is one of them.  

"For example, if the chair is stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded, or on a motion that is out of order in the existing parliamentary situation, the time to raise these points of order is when the chair states the motion."  RONR (11th ed), p. 250

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

24 minutes ago, Guest R Harrison said:

Perfect. That clarifies perfectly.

And if a member moves to object to the consideration before the motion is stated by the chair then the objection for consideration would be out of order?

 

11 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I think so. RONR notes that the objection is similar to a point of order in some respects.  I think timing is one of them.  

"For example, if the chair is stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded, or on a motion that is out of order in the existing parliamentary situation, the time to raise these points of order is when the chair states the motion."  RONR (11th ed), p. 250

 

I don't see why this situation should get to the point of applying an objection to consideration, and it seems to me that if the assembly votes to adopt an agenda that includes specifically worded motions for which previous notice has been given, such an objection is likely dilatory.

But getting back to the point of when an objection can normally be raised, I think it could be done after the main motion is moved, even before the chair has stated the question on it.

I vaguely recall that there was an earlier thread on this topic, perhaps before the 11th edition was published.

I also wouldn't read the quoted text from page 250 as implying that a point of order can't be raised before the chair states the question. It simply says that *if* the chair is erroneously stating the question, that is the time to raise a point of order -- not after the debate has begun.

[George Mervosh]

There you go, R. Harrison.  Mr. Gerber's clarifications should prove quite helpful moving forward.