Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

End suspension of the rules


Guest Greg S

Recommended Posts

I recently encountered a situation where we had a "motion to suspend the rules" to discuss a topic that was tabled. The motion passed, we had a discussion, but no one knew the proper form to exit the motion. This led me to wonder, what is the proper motion to end suspension of the rules. I flipped through RONR but wasn't able to find anything. Does anyone know what section covers this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tom Coronite said:

Not to go off topic, hopefully, but I’m curious as to why you’d suspend the rules, rather than move to remove the item from being tabled.

Probably because they are using the term "tabled" differently that RONR does.  That or they didn't know there is a motion to Take From The Table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guest Greg S said:

I recently encountered a situation where we had a "motion to suspend the rules" to discuss a topic that was tabled. The motion passed, we had a discussion, but no one knew the proper form to exit the motion. This led me to wonder, what is the proper motion to end suspension of the rules. I flipped through RONR but wasn't able to find anything. Does anyone know what section covers this?

There is no motion to “end suspension of the rules,” as it is not in order to simply move to suspend the rules. Rather, the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules specifies the specific purpose. After that purpose is completed, the suspension automatically ends. Suspend the Rules is discussed in Section 23 of RONR, 11th ed.

I concur with Mr. Coronite that it is also not entirely clear whether suspending the rules was necessary in the first place, but as Mr Harrison suggests, perhaps the word “tabled” is being used incorrectly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It may also be that the poster had in mind some disposition of the motion after the "discussion" had been completed. Since we have so little information about the actual intent, it is impossible to know what, if any, motion was the proper one to make. Alternatively, the intent may have been to shut off further "discussion". Without more information from the poster, it is hard to provide a definitive answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So to further explain my situation and question:

1) They didn't want to take it off the table, they were happy it was tabled. They were having a discussion about why it was tabled to appease concerns of other members.

2) In terms of my situation, I was wondering who and how it is determined that purpose of the suspension is complete? ( Does the chair just states so? Does it take a motion? Could just one person object and keep rules suspended?)

3) In terms of a hypothetical, I can imagine a small group using such a suspension to filibuster. Imagine an open ended suspension "We will discuss X". 15 people of the 50 there stand up to speak, grandstanding, etc, and intended on taking their entire time for 2 1/2 hours of delay. Does anyone have a RORN reference for getting out of Suspension of the rules in that case?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Greg S said:

2) In terms of my situation, I was wondering who and how it is determined that purpose of the suspension is complete? ( Does the chair just states so? Does it take a motion? Could just one person object and keep rules suspended?)
 

Interesting question.  Suppose the rules are Suspended to deal with X.  Motion is made, debate happens and the vote is taken.  Rules no longer suspended - pretty obvious right?

But then there is a motion to Reconsider.  Do the rules automatically get resuspended?  Or a motion is made to Postpone to a Definite Time.  When that time comes do you need another motion to suspend the rules?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Greg S said:


3) In terms of a hypothetical, I can imagine a small group using such a suspension to filibuster. Imagine an open ended suspension "We will discuss X". 15 people of the 50 there stand up to speak, grandstanding, etc, and intended on taking their entire time for 2 1/2 hours of delay. Does anyone have a RORN reference for getting out of Suspension of the rules in that case?

 

"Mister (or Madame) President I move the Previous Question.  Passes 35 to 15.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Guest Greg S said:

1) They didn't want to take it off the table, they were happy it was tabled. They were having a discussion about why it was tabled to appease concerns of other members.

This is what is called a meta-discussion. This type of thing is highly improper and should continue only until the moment the presiding officer puts an end to it.

1 hour ago, Drake Savory said:

But then there is a motion to Reconsider.  Do the rules automatically get resuspended?

Only in the case that for some reason the motion to Reconsider is disallowed at that particular moment. Those cases are rare given the extremely high rank of the motion to Reconsider.

1 hour ago, Drake Savory said:

Or a motion is made to Postpone to a Definite Time.  When that time comes do you need another motion to suspend the rules?

No. Unless a special order for this time interferes or a general order for the same time made before this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A motion to Suspend the Rules is not used to limit or extend the limits of debate. For this specific purpose, there is a subsidiary motion called Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate. Because this motion has the effect of suspending the rules governing the number or length of speeches in debate, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

One way to "undo" what was put into effect by such a motion is to reject the motion upon reconsideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Guest Greg S said:

1) They didn't want to take it off the table, they were happy it was tabled. They were having a discussion about why it was tabled to appease concerns of other members.

Then yes, I suppose Suspend the Rules was the appropriate tool.

7 hours ago, Guest Greg S said:

2) In terms of my situation, I was wondering who and how it is determined that purpose of the suspension is complete? ( Does the chair just states so? Does it take a motion? Could just one person object and keep rules suspended?)

Well, it should be obvious because the motion should say so. :)

If it is unclear, I suppose it can be determined by the chair, subject to appeal, or by a motion. Certainly one person’s objection is not sufficient to prevent the assembly from applying its rules.

7 hours ago, Guest Greg S said:

3) In terms of a hypothetical, I can imagine a small group using such a suspension to filibuster. Imagine an open ended suspension "We will discuss X". 15 people of the 50 there stand up to speak, grandstanding, etc, and intended on taking their entire time for 2 1/2 hours of delay. Does anyone have a RORN reference for getting out of Suspension of the rules in that case?

I am inclined to think a majority vote is sufficient, and hopefully the assembly has learned its lesson that such open-ended suspensions are a bad idea.

6 hours ago, Drake Savory said:

Mister (or Madame) President I move the Previous Question.  Passes 35 to 15.  

I don’t think the Previous Question is the appropriate tool in the situation described, since the purpose of this motion is to bring one or more pending questions to an immediate vote, and it therefore has no meaningful application if there is no pending question.

4 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

This is what is called a meta-discussion. This type of thing is highly improper and should continue only until the moment the presiding officer puts an end to it.

We are told, however, that the assembly suspended the rules specifically to allow this discussion.

14 minutes ago, reelsman said:

A motion to Suspend the Rules is not used to limit or extend the limits of debate. For this specific purpose, there is a subsidiary motion called Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate. Because this motion has the effect of suspending the rules governing the number or length of speeches in debate, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

It doesn’t seem, however, that it is being used to extend debate. The OP seems to be discussing using the motion to permit discussion of a subject with no motion pending (and unwisely placing no time limits on the discussion).

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must confess that I am still confused by the original poster's use of the word "tabled". I'm sure this is because I am a dotty, old man. But, for some reason that troubles me, I keep thinking he is using the term in the sense that is common in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth—where "tabled" roughly means "put before the assembly".  In other words, after all the comments, I still wonder whether the question is pending or not.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is also the fact that a motion to "lay on the table" in RONR  and a motion to "table" in the AIP Standard Code (AIPSC), are two drastically different motions.   The motion in RONR lays the item aside temporarily.  The motion in the  AIPSC kills it, like the motion to postpone indefinitely in RONR.  Therefore, knowing the precise context in which the motion (or the word) is being used is important.  To say that something was "tabled", without further explanation, is quite ambiguous and confusing.

Edited to add:  Also, it is quite common for a motion to postpone to be incorrectly referred to as a motion to table, and when someone says something was tabled, that person actually means that it was postponed.  

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...