Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Rule against postponement of a class of subjects


Alex Meed

Recommended Posts

RONR (11th ed.), p. 184, l. 17, to p. 185, l. 5, set forth the general rule that a class of business cannot be postponed by one motion, but each item may be postponed as it is arrived at. It also provides that it is not in order to make the subsidiary motion to Postpone on a question that is not pending, but that such a postponement may be accomplished, "when appropriate", by a main motion.

When is a postponement by main motion "appropriate" in the sense in which the term is used on p. 184?

As a specific example, is it in order to postpone each item in a given class of business by separate main motions adopted one after the other? If so, can that series of postponement motions be adopted by a single vote, as "a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects ... offered in one motion" (p. 274, ll. 32–34), with any individual postponement subject to a separate vote on request of any member?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Alex M. said:

When is a postponement by main motion "appropriate" in the sense in which the term is used on p. 184?

Whenever it would be in order to move a main motion.

1 hour ago, Alex M. said:

is it in order to postpone each item in a given class of business by separate main motions adopted one after the other? If so, can that series of postponement motions be adopted by a single vote, as "a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects ... offered in one motion" (p. 274, ll. 32–34), with any individual postponement subject to a separate vote on request of any member?

Not according to p. 184, lines 23-25: "It is not in order, either through a subsidiary motion or a main motion, to postpone a class of business composed of several items or subjects, ..."

Doing it through a series of main motions is effectively the same.

RONR does suggest that the appropriate way to do this would be to Suspend the Rules (p. 184, l. 23 - p. 185, l. 1).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example of an appropriate use of an incidental main motion to postpone an item of business is a postponement due to the absence of one or more important persons who possess critical information on the subject.

Another example would be a postponement of an important item of business because of low attendance due to bad weather.

While it is not proper to postpone a class of business with a main motion, it is proper to postpone individual items of business. In my opinion, a series of main motions to postpone individual items of business does not violate the rule on page 184.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Observe the fact that the prohibition of postponing an entire class of business is also extended to the prohibition of laying an entire class of business on the table as specifically mentioned on page 211, lines 21-27. However, I cannot find an identical prohibition on referring an entire class of business to a committee. Perhaps I missed it somehow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think you can take it for granted that a main motion to refer all general orders, or some such thing, to committee would not be in order, either.

What do you base that on?

RONR lists a specific prohibition on doing this for Postpone to a Certain Time and Lay on the Table. The Principles of Interpretation, if applied to RONR, suggest that it is therefore not prohibited for the motion to Refer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Not according to p. 184, lines 23-25: "It is not in order, either through a subsidiary motion or a main motion, to postpone a class of business composed of several items or subjects, ..."

Doing it through a series of main motions is effectively the same.

RONR does suggest that the appropriate way to do this would be to Suspend the Rules (p. 184, l. 23 - p. 185, l. 1).

But RONR specifically allows each in a class to be postponed by subsidiary motion (p. 184, ll. 26–27). Why do lines 23–25 prevent the use of a series of main motions but not multiple subsidiary motions?

9 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

While it is not proper to postpone a class of business with a main motion, it is proper to postpone individual items of business. In my opinion, a series of main motions to postpone individual items of business does not violate the rule on page 184.

And in your view could the series of main motions be moved as a single motion, subject to division at any member's request? Or must a member make a separate motion, which is then separately seconded and voted on, to postpone each item in the class?

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Observe the fact that the prohibition of postponing an entire class of business is also extended to the prohibition of laying an entire class of business on the table as specifically mentioned on page 211, lines 21-27. However, I cannot find an identical prohibition on referring an entire class of business to a committee. Perhaps I missed it somehow.

 

3 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think you can take it for granted that a main motion to refer all general orders, or some such thing, to committee would not be in order, either. RONR doesn't explicitly deal with such a suggestion.

Is a main motion to refer to committee in the same nature as a postponement or laying on the table? In other words, when a future item of business is postponed or laid on the table, it is prevented from coming before the assembly at its original time. Can a future item of business similarly be committed and prevented from coming before the assembly until the committee reports (or is discharged or otherwise)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. I think making a series of subsidiary motions would not be very useful, but it could be very confusing. No such practice has ever developed, as far as I know.

2. A series of main motions would, in my opinion, be in order; but, each would be handled in the regular way, one after the other. Parliamentary law has a prima regula: one main motion at a time. Each main motion would be separately debatable and amendable.

3. An assembly can add an instruction to either a main motion or a subsidiary motion, Commit, for a committee to report at a particular meeting in the future or at a time no later than a particular meeting in the future. If the assembly wishes to take back control of the main motion before the committee has made its final report, Discharge a Committee is the proper motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alex M. said:

But RONR specifically allows each in a class to be postponed by subsidiary motion (p. 184, ll. 26–27). Why do lines 23–25 prevent the use of a series of main motions but not multiple subsidiary motions?

Each subsidiary motion is moved as each specific item is brought up. You're not doing them all at once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

2. A series of main motions would, in my opinion, be in order; but, each would be handled in the regular way, one after the other. Parliamentary law has a prima regula: one main motion at a time. Each main motion would be separately debatable and amendable.

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Each subsidiary motion is moved as each specific item is brought up. You're not doing them all at once.

This is closely related to a question I've had ever since I got about halfway through my first reading of RONR, so I've factored it out to this thread.

Quote

3. An assembly can add an instruction to either a main motion or a subsidiary motion, Commit, for a committee to report at a particular meeting in the future or at a time no later than a particular meeting in the future. If the assembly wishes to take back control of the main motion before the committee has made its final report, Discharge a Committee is the proper motion.

And I suppose that, while the matter is in the hands of the committee, it is not in order to consider it in the assembly? It seems decidedly odd to allow a matter that will come up as pending later in the meeting to be sent off to committee before that time.

It strikes me as even more odd that a majority cannot postpone a class of business or lay it on the table by a single vote, but can refer it to committee by a single vote when no business is pending, and then reconsider the referral (if the committee has yet to meet and it is within the time limit) whenever it is desired to take up the matter after the time originally fixed for its consideration. (And, perhaps, the majority could be sure that the committee will not interfere with its plan by instructing it not to meet before when they anticipate wanting to take up the matter again, or simply by ensuring that nobody is appointed to the committee who would call an early meeting.) Aside from the time limit on reconsideration, and the fact that this is a main motion instead of a subsidiary one, how is the effect of that not different from laying the class of business on the table by a single vote?

Edited by Alex M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two ways to reach an item of business and take it up out of its assigned place in the order of business:

1) Individually take up each intervening item and adopt a subsidiary motion to Lay on the Table; and,

2) Adopt an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the desired item of business immediately.

There is no need, in these cases, to postpone an entire class of main motions to reach the desired one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might also be worthwhile to note that an incidental main motion or a subsidiary motion, Commit, is not in order when its sole purpose is to refer a main motion to a committee to postpone consideration of a main motion to some future time. In lieu of such a misuse of a motion, an incidental main motion to postpone or a subsidiary motion, Postpone to a Certain Time, should be made, instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

RONR (11th ed.), pp. 168, 489. It is not the purpose of a committee to be the passive vehicle for what should be a postponement.

It is implied that a committee can be used as a vehicle for considering a motion beyond the next session on p. 87, ll. 14-19.

Edited by J. J.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is certainly true that a committee can report at a session later than the one at which the referral was made, nothing on p. 87—or anywhere else—implies that a motion to refer a main motion to a committee is in order when it's sole purpose is to postpone consideration.

Edited by Rob Elsman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

No.  It is implied on p. 87, ll. 14-19 that a committee can be used as method for considering a motion beyond thee next session.

 

9 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

While it is certainly true that a committee can report at a session later than the one at which the referral was made, nothing on p. 87—or anywhere else—implies that a motion to refer a main motion to a committee is in order when it's sole purpose is to postpone consideration.

Oh dear, not this argument again...

I should also note that another thread (also linked above) is disagreeing over the question I raised in the third paragraph of my original post.

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...