Taking from the table and Dividing the Question VS Meeting Agenda priority

[Guest StudentSenator]

Two Senate meetings ago, a motion to amend the Constitution was laid on the table. At the past Senate meeting, a motion was made to take the item off of the table for discussion. This motion failed as a Senator argued that they would present a better solution to the legislature on hand. That solution was then written up as legislature and put on the agenda for the next meeting. However, before the body moved to that item, a member renewed the motion to take the Constitutional amendment off of the table. This passed and that member then introduced a motion to dive the Constitutional amendment into many pieces to vote on and discuss. Does this new motion to take off the table take priority over the agenda and the solution which was to be discussed, especially considering that the solution is directly tied to this Constitutional amendment issue? If it does take priority, is there anyway to postpone/halt the motion to divide the question/take off the table in order to ensure a fair opportunity to discuss/hear out the other solution?

[George Mervosh]

First off, it seems the motion to lay on the table was not properly used, but that's almost always the case.  See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12

I suppose the rest of your scenario hinges on whether or not each meeting in your Senate is a new session and how often these meetings are held, since "In cases in which the next regular business session will be held before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see pp. 89–90), a question laid on the table remains there until taken from the table or until the close of the next regular session; if not taken up by that time, the question dies."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 214

It's quite likely the motion that they were trying to take from the table was dead already.

[Josh Martin]

25 minutes ago, Guest StudentSenator said:

Does this new motion to take off the table take priority over the agenda and the solution which was to be discussed, especially considering that the solution is directly tied to this Constitutional amendment issue?

The motion to take from the table was out of order in any event because a motion which is laid on the table dies if it is not taken from the table by the end of the next regular meeting if it is within a quarterly interval, or by the end of the same meeting if the next regular meeting was not within a quarterly interval. It is, however, too late to raise a Point of Order regarding this issue now.

25 minutes ago, Guest StudentSenator said:

If it does take priority, is there anyway to postpone/halt the motion to divide the question/take off the table in order to ensure a fair opportunity to discuss/hear out the other solution?

Yes, by adopting a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time, or a motion to Lay on the Table. Either requires a majority vote for adoption, and the former is debatable and amendable.

[George Mervosh]

28 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, by adopting a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time, or a motion to Lay on the Table. Either requires a majority vote for adoption, and the former is debatable and amendable.

But he needs to be careful with this option since they did vote to take the main motion from the table:

"A motion to Lay on the Table that has been voted down can be renewed, or a question that has been taken from the table can be laid on the table again, subject to the following condition in either case: A motion made the same day to lay the same question on the table is in order only after material progress in business or debate has been made, or when an unforeseen urgent matter requires immediate attention. (This rule is a consequence of the fact that the rejection of a motion to Lay on the Table or the taking of a question from the table means that the assembly wishes to consider the matter at that time.) "  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 213-214

Edited February 26, 2019 at 07:09 PM by George Mervosh

[George Mervosh]

By the way the timing of our Guest's scenario is really strange.  If this isn't a hypothetical question It's almost like they stopped mid meeting to find out what to do next. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Guest StudentSenator said:

Does this new motion to take off the table take priority over the agenda and the solution which was to be discussed, especially considering that the solution is directly tied to this Constitutional amendment issue?

If the previous motion is still on the table, then no new motion that would conflict with it is in order. (And if the previous motion expired at the end of the meeting at which it was laid on the table, then it cannot be taken from the table.)

[Guest Zev]

19 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

If the previous motion is still on the table, then no new motion that would conflict with it is in order.

My understanding is that when it comes to issues of amendments to the constitution or bylaws that all such motions deserve to be considered no matter how conflicting. Nevertheless, I agree that if the motion that was laid on the table was not taken from the table by the end of the next meeting it then died.

[AJ Senator]

Hi everyone! Decided to make an account  y'all seem like an awesome community!

To clarify some of the points, a Point of Order was called at this past meeting when the attempt to take it off the table was made for this very reason. However, the Senate Chair proceeded anyway with advice from the Judicial Commissioners who made the argument that "so basically the motion died last meeting, cause people voted it down and it didn't get 2/3 when you objected to it. However, if we don't propose "new business" anyone can propose a new motion to take the constitution from the table... And there is new business on the agenda, but until we formally move into it, anyone can make a motion to take the constitution from the table." I understand that there could have probably been an Appeal of the Senate Chair's decision here (?) but that did not happen.

We have sessions weekly.

As for the strangeness of the situation, the meeting was soon adjourned after these events so it is almost like we stopped mid-meeting  Essentially, the motion to divide the question was made and the body voted to move into a division of the question. A senator then proposed a way to divide the question (by splitting the Constitutional Amendment package into 7 parts) and after that the floor was made open to motions, at which point a Senator made a motion to lay on the table the division of the question and move to the next item on the agenda which was voted on and rejected. Then, a Senator motioned to adjourn the meeting which passed.

Overall, it seems like there are two competing solutions for addressing the  Executive Board'sConstitutional Amendment package - one which aims to divide it into many pieces which would individually be discussed and voted on in Senate, and a proposal for an Ad Hoc Committee which would develop a compromise package outside of Senate and have many rules to try and ensure that a compromise package is developed and can be passed quickly in Senate. 

Is there any motion which can give both sides the opportunity to discuss/debate why they believe their option is better? I worry that postponing the division of the question would result in a perception of bias against that solution. 

[AJ Senator]

Oh and as for the usage of the original motion to Lay on the Table the Constitutional Amendment Package, the intent was to allow some speakers (from Cabinet) who had limited time to be able to make their updates. Unfortunately, Senate decided to adjourn after this instead of bring the Package off the table  

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, AJ Senator said:

However, the Senate Chair proceeded anyway with advice from the Judicial Commissioners who made the argument that "so basically the motion died last meeting, cause people voted it down and it didn't get 2/3 when you objected to it. However, if we don't propose "new business" anyone can propose a new motion to take the constitution from the table... And there is new business on the agenda, but until we formally move into it, anyone can make a motion to take the constitution from the table."

I don’t understand this part about “basically the motion died last meeting, cause people voted it down and it didn't get 2/3 when you objected to it.” As for the rest of it, I believe the advice is mistaken, since it seems to me that the motion laid on the table died several meetings ago. It should also be noted that what was laid on (and taken from) the table was the motion to amend the constitution, not the constitution itself. In the end, however, the motion was permitted, which seems to me to be correct.

1 hour ago, AJ Senator said:

I understand that there could have probably been an Appeal of the Senate Chair's decision here (?) but that did not happen.

This is generally correct, although an organization with “Judicial Commissioners” may have its own rules on this matter. In any event, it’s too late now.

1 hour ago, AJ Senator said:

Is there any motion which can give both sides the opportunity to discuss/debate why they believe their option is better?

The best solution would be for the member to withdraw his motion and start from scratch.

If he is not willing to do that, then you could make a motion to suspend the rules (2/3 vote) to permit debate on this issue. (The motion to divide a question is not debatable.) After that, if the members want to discuss the new motion, you can just proceed from where you are. If you want to discuss the other motion, again, withdrawal is the easiest solution, but if the member is unwilling, then you can vote against  the motion to divide the question, adopt a motion for the Previous Question (2/3 vote), and vote against the main motion.

Edited February 27, 2019 at 12:05 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

43 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

...but if the member is unwilling, then you can vote against  the motion to divide the question,...

...and then perhaps refer the motion to a special committee and all the members could discuss it and whatever alternatives they can come up with for as long as needed.

[AJ Senator]

Thanks all, appreciate the help!

[Nathan Zook]

It sounds as if the executive board has been working on a revision.  While the undertaking is laudatory, the results are problematic because there are additional members with significant interest and divergent views in the matter.  When dealing with a revision to the bylaws, it is almost always helpful to refer the matter to a committee to hash out the substantive disagreements.  Such a committee needs to be representative of the body so that its work has the best chance of being generally accepted.  And it is important that the work be generally accepted, because open debate on more-or-less the entire bylaws is likely to end up with bylaws that conflict.  Leading to conflict.

It sounds as perhaps the frequency of your meetings is working against you in this situation.  It is not unusual in my experience for the work of bylaws revisions to take a significant period of time.  If everyone who is interested in working on the changes is appointed to a committee charged with recommending changes, then the work can be done without overwhelming the society.  The committee can report on progress each week.  If necessary, the assembly can instruct the committee, or even dissolve it.
 

And yes, I set my account as well because folks here are awesome!

[AJ Senator]

11 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

It sounds as if the executive board has been working on a revision.  While the undertaking is laudatory, the results are problematic because there are additional members with significant interest and divergent views in the matter.  When dealing with a revision to the bylaws, it is almost always helpful to refer the matter to a committee to hash out the substantive disagreements.  Such a committee needs to be representative of the body so that its work has the best chance of being generally accepted.  And it is important that the work be generally accepted, because open debate on more-or-less the entire bylaws is likely to end up with bylaws that conflict.  Leading to conflict.

It sounds as perhaps the frequency of your meetings is working against you in this situation.  It is not unusual in my experience for the work of bylaws revisions to take a significant period of time.  If everyone who is interested in working on the changes is appointed to a committee charged with recommending changes, then the work can be done without overwhelming the society.  The committee can report on progress each week.  If necessary, the assembly can instruct the committee, or even dissolve it.
 

And yes, I set my account as well because folks here are awesome!

Wow, this is pretty much exactly what the idea for the Ad Hoc committee was, in that it would seek to work on hours outside of Senate, with clear rules for the Committee to ensure agreement from all three branches of the organization. Just as you said, the idea was it would allow Senate to continue conducting its business and create a unified package. Part of the issue is that the E-board really wants to force at least part of their package through and some senators have joined with them on that. The other main concern people had with the committee was a general worry that their views would not get represented or that people would not join the committee (as it would require additional time outside of the regular meetings which some senators - who are unpaid students at the end of the day - do not feel is worth it/are not willing to spend that time). And some people believe not all the changes will take that long to discuss and thus they forced a division of the question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

21 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

My understanding is that when it comes to issues of amendments to the constitution or bylaws that all such motions deserve to be considered no matter how conflicting.

You must be alluding to the text on pages 593-594. That doesn't say anything about motions being laid on the table, but you may be right.

[Shmuel Gerber]

20 hours ago, AJ Senator said:

Essentially, the motion to divide the question was made and the body voted to move into a division of the question. A senator then proposed a way to divide the question (by splitting the Constitutional Amendment package into 7 parts) and after that the floor was made open to motions, at which point a Senator made a motion to lay on the table the division of the question and move to the next item on the agenda which was voted on and rejected. Then, a Senator motioned to adjourn the meeting which passed.

Division of the question is a single motion, so I don't know what you mean by "the body voted to move into a division of the question." The motion to divide should specify how the question is to be divided before the vote is taken on it. Then, after the motion for Division of a Question is adopted, the chair states the question on the first part, and the body considers and votes on it. Then the chair states the question on the second part, etc.

I also don't understand this part: "A senator then proposed a way to divide the question (by splitting the Constitutional Amendment package into 7 parts) and after that the floor was made open  to motions". If the motion to divide was adopted without specifying how, then the chair should have called for suggestions (without any debate) as to how the motion should be divided, although I suppose a motion to Lay on the Table would be in order.

[AJ Senator]

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Division of the question is a single motion, so I don't know what you mean by "the body voted to move into a division of the question." The motion to divide should specify how the question is to be divided before the vote is taken on it. Then, after the motion for Division of a Question is adopted, the chair states the question on the first part, and the body considers and votes on it. Then the chair states the question on the second part, etc.

I also don't understand this part: "A senator then proposed a way to divide the question (by splitting the Constitutional Amendment package into 7 parts) and after that the floor was made open  to motions". If the motion to divide was adopted without specifying how, then the chair should have called for suggestions (without any debate) as to how the motion should be divided, although I suppose a motion to Lay on the Table would be in order.

Hm, I may have used incorrect terminology? A senator asked to divide the question (without specifying how) and we voted on whether to divide the question which passed. Then a senator suggested a way to divide the question (which failed) and then another Senator suggested a way to divide the question. Then a senator motioned to lay it on the table which failed and then the meeting was adjourned. I don't remember if the second Senator's suggestion (which is the 7 parts I was referring to) was taken to a vote and passed, however.

[Shmuel Gerber]

48 minutes ago, AJ Senator said:

Hm, I may have used incorrect terminology? A senator asked to divide the question (without specifying how) and we voted on whether to divide the question which passed. Then a senator suggested a way to divide the question (which failed) and then another Senator suggested a way to divide the question. Then a senator motioned to lay it on the table which failed and then the meeting was adjourned. I don't remember if the second Senator's suggestion (which is the 7 parts I was referring to) was taken to a vote and passed, however.

Not incorrect terminology, just incorrect procedure.