Motions

[R12181948]

Someone makes a motion and I believe it is out of order. Can I call for a point on inquiry right after the motion is made or do I wait until after a second is made and discussion is open ?

 

 

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, R12181948 said:

Someone makes a motion and I believe it is out of order. Can I call for a point on inquiry right after the motion is made or do I wait until after a second is made and discussion is open ?

 

You raise a "point of order" (or make a parliamentary inquiry) at the earliest opportunity.  Assuming you think the motion is out of order and you want to raise a point of order rather than make an inquiry to the chair, you can and probably should raise your point of order as soon as the motion is made, without waiting on a second.  You can, of course, wait to see if it is seconded, but if it is and if debate on the motion  begins immediately, it may be too late for you to raise your point of order.  Why take that chance?  Make it as soon as the improper motion is made.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/21/2019 at 10:34 PM, R12181948 said:

Someone makes a motion and I believe it is out of order. Can I call for a point on inquiry right after the motion is made or do I wait until after a second is made and discussion is open ?

It's not an inquiry, it's a Point of Order (see §23).  And you would raise it as soon as you notice a breach of the rules.

With respect to timeliness of a point of order against a motion, RONR observes:

Quote

After debate on such a motion has begun—no matter how clearly out of order the motion may be—a point of order is too late. If a member is unsure of his point or wishes to hear what the maker has to say on behalf of the motion before pressing a point of order, he may, with the chair’s sufferance, “reserve a point of order” against the motion; but after the maker has spoken, he must insist upon his point of order or withdraw it.  [RONR 11th Ed. p. 250]

 

[Guest Zev]

54 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It's not an inquiry, it's a Point of Order (see §23).  And you would raise it as soon as you notice a breach of the rules.

I see nothing wrong with raising a Parliamentary Inquiry and after the chairman's explanation I can raise a Point Of Order and get a chance to move an Appeal if needed.

[Transpower]

Prior to the beginning of debate, you could raise an Objection to the Consideration of the Question.  No second is required, and no debate.  The objection is sustained if 2/3 vote against consideration.

[Joshua Katz]

4 minutes ago, Transpower said:

Prior to the beginning of debate, you could raise an Objection to the Consideration of the Question.  No second is required, and no debate.  The objection is sustained if 2/3 vote against consideration.

For what purpose? If the motion is out of order, it shouldn't be considered; that requires only a reasonable chair, not a 2/3 vote. If you mean after a point of order fails: if the chair rules differently, and is sustained on appeal, why would you then be able to get a 2/3 vote?

[Josh Martin]

8 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

If you mean after a point of order fails: if the chair rules differently, and is sustained on appeal, why would you then be able to get a 2/3 vote?

Why not? The entire purpose of an Objection to the Consideration of the Question is to prevent the consideration of a motion which is in order, but which the assembly feels would be too damaging to discuss. I see no reason why the fact that the chair’s ruling that the motion is in order was upheld on Appeal necessarily suggests that such an objection would fail.

Edited March 26, 2019 at 01:42 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

Well, yes, if it is too damaging to discuss. But the OP only said he thought it was out of order. 

[Dan Honemann]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, yes, if it is too damaging to discuss. But the OP only said he thought it was out of order. 

Yes, and I can't imagine why objecting to its consideration was suggested as a proper course of action to take in this event.