Ruling a motion dilatory

[mjhmjh]

I recently chaired a meeting and want to make sure I followed the rules.

At the conclusion of debate (the special rules of order set an overall time limit on debate), a member stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by two minutes. The motion was seconded and failed.

This same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by one minute. The motion was seconded and failed.

The same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by 45 seconds. I ruled the motion dilatory, as it seemed clear the meeting did not want to continue debate. The maker of the motion appealed the decision of the chair. I gave the first speech in debate, others spoke (no more than once), and I spoke last. We voted, and the meeting voted to maintain the decision of the chair.

Was all of this proper? 

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, mjhmjh said:

I recently chaired a meeting and want to make sure I followed the rules.

At the conclusion of debate (the special rules of order set an overall time limit on debate), a member stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by two minutes. The motion was seconded and failed.

This same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by one minute. The motion was seconded and failed.

The same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by 45 seconds. I ruled the motion dilatory, as it seemed clear the meeting did not want to continue debate. The maker of the motion appealed the decision of the chair. I gave the first speech in debate, others spoke (no more than once), and I spoke last. We voted, and the meeting voted to maintain the decision of the chair.

Was all of this proper? 

Once the motion to extend debate has failed, it may not be renewed in regard to the same question in this circumstance (pp. 340, ll.1-8).

The motion was out of order, should be ruled out of order and would be dilatory if repeated. 

It may advisable for the chair to note that the motion to extend the limits of debate would be out of order.  It might be advisable for the chair to note that motion to extend the limits of debate is amendable, while it is pending. 

Edited March 12, 2019 at 05:29 PM by J. J.

[Atul Kapur]

First, I think you did the right thing and may even have been too lenient on the member by allowing him to renew the motion the first time.

J.J. is correct regarding renewing the motion to Extend Limits of Debate. There may be an argument that the proper motion in this case is to Suspend the Rules. However, "the motion to Suspend the Rules for the same purpose cannot be renewed at the same meeting" (p. 339, lines 13-14) so it leads to the same answer that J.J. gave: the second motion was out of order.

 

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

First, I think you did the right thing and may even have been too lenient on the member by allowing him to renew the motion the first time.

J.J. is correct regarding renewing the motion to Extend Limits of Debate. There may be an argument that the proper motion in this case is to Suspend the Rules. However, "the motion to Suspend the Rules for the same purpose cannot be renewed at the same meeting" (p. 339, lines 13-14) so it leads to the same answer that J.J. gave: the second motion was out of order.

 

Also, reconsider, if the member voted on the prevailing side the motion to set the limits of debate, provided it was adopted at meeting.

BTW:  This actually did happen to me. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

Once the motion to extend debate has failed, it may not be renewed in regard to the same question in this circumstance (pp. 340, ll.1-8).

But the same motion was not renewed; it was a different motion. 

However, I agree that in this case, the chair probably had good reason to rule the third attempt dilatory. But there should have been no debate on the Appeal, especially since it involved an undebatable motion.

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

But the same motion was not renewed; it was a different motion. 

However, I agree that in this case, the chair probably had good reason to rule the third attempt dilatory. But there should have been no debate on the Appeal, especially since it involved an undebatable motion.

Thank you, Shmuel, that is what I was originally thinking but the other responses had just about convinced me that a motion to extend debate by one minute is the same motion as a motion to extend debate by two minutes.  My thoughts were that that the second motion was ok, but the third one for 45 seconds could reasonably be considered as dilatory. 

I suspect there may be a bit more discussion as to whether the first two motions to extend debate were the same motion.  I  think they were different motions.  So was the third, but I agree that it was probably dilatory.

[Atul Kapur]

24 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Also, reconsider, if the member voted on the prevailing side the motion to set the limits of debate, provided it was adopted at meeting.

Except that, in the OP's case, the limit was set by a Special Rule of Order.

23 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

Once the motion to extend debate has failed, it may not be renewed in regard to the same question in this circumstance (pp. 340, ll.1-8).

But the same motion was not renewed; it was a different motion. 

But the threshold is whether it is practically the same question (p. 340, ll. 5-6). If I were presiding, I would say that extending for two minutes and extending for one minute were practically the same. And I'd be willing to accept the assembly's decision on appeal.

[Richard Brown]

19 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

But the threshold is whether it is practically the same question (p. 340, ll. 5-6). If I were presiding, I would say that extending for two minutes and extending for one minute were practically the same.

In terms of minutes of additional debate, I would agree that a difference of one minute may not sound significant.  But, a motion  to extend debate for two minutes extends it by twice as much as a motion to extend it by one minute.  That's a 100 percent difference time-wise.  Or fifty percent, whichever way you prefer it.  The second motion was for only half the time of the first motion.  When you look at it that way, it is significantly more significant.