Incidental motion relating to manner of voting

[Alex Meed]

This is a distillation of what happened in an amateur assembly today in which I took part:

At a convention, a resolution is pending. Delegate A moves the previous question. While the motion for the previous question is pending, Delegate B moves that the resolution be voted on by unit, with each unit in attendance casting the same number of votes instead of each delegate casting one. (This is the voting method prescribed by the bylaws for elections, but not for resolutions.) The chair rules Delegate B's motion out of order, puts the question on Delegate A's motion (which passes), and puts the question on the resolution.

Questions:

• While a motion for the previous question is pending, is it possible for another member to make another motion? Should the chair have recognized Delegate B for that purpose? (In reality, neither Delegate A nor Delegate B sought the floor to make their respective motions, but nobody else did seek the floor.)
• Was it in order for Delegate B to make an incidental motion that adhered to a pending question, but not the immediately pending question? If the latter, would Delegate B's motion have been undebatable since Delegate A's undebatable motion was also pending?
• Is it in order to move that voting on a resolution be by unit if that procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for elections, but not for resolutions? (My opinion: no, since it violates the fundamental principle of one person, one vote, and the provision in the bylaws only applies to elections, meaning for resolutions the fundamental principle applies and cannot be suspended.)

I unfortunately don't have immediate access to the text of the society's bylaws. I would work on locating them, but I'm about to graduate and cease to be a member, and I'm sure the other Robert's Rules nerds in my unit will happily take up the charge.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Alex M. said:

While a motion for the previous question is pending, is it possible for another member to make another motion?

Yes, provided the other motion takes precedence over the motion for the Previous Question.

"The subsidiary motion for the Previous Question:

...yields to the subsidiary motion to Lay on the Table, to all privileged motions, and to all applicable incidental motions." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 198)

11 hours ago, Alex M. said:

Should the chair have recognized Delegate B for that purpose?

Ultimately, yes. The situation is complicated a bit because an undebatable motion is immediately pending, and therefore, recognition is in order only for limited purposes. Depending on the chair's confidence in the member's understanding of the parliamentary situation the chair may, at his option, immediately recognize the member (and then call him to order if it turns out what he is trying to do is not presently in order), or in the alternative, ask the member for what purpose he seeks recognition, and then determine whether to recognize the member based upon his answer.

"Whenever a member rises and addresses the chair at a time when the floor can be granted only for limited purposes and the chair is not certain that the member understands this fact—for example, when an undebatable question is immediately pending as explained on page 380—the chair, before recognizing the member, should ask, "For what purpose does the member [or "the gentleman," or "the lady," or, as in Congress, "the gentlewoman"] rise?" If members remain seated around a conference table and do not rise, the chair may ask, "For what purpose does the member address the chair?"" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 377)

11 hours ago, Alex M. said:

(In reality, neither Delegate A nor Delegate B sought the floor to make their respective motions, but nobody else did seek the floor.)

Well, in that event, the chair should have called both delegates to order and not stated the question on either of their motions, as both of them require recognition. So that's something to get right for next time.

11 hours ago, Alex M. said:

Was it in order for Delegate B to make an incidental motion that adhered to a pending question, but not the immediately pending question?

I would not categorically answer "yes" or "no" to this question. It depends on the incidental motion to be made, and on what the immediately pending question is. In this specific instance, I believe it is in order to make a motion of this nature (although I believe this particular motion is out of order for other reasons, as discussed below). The rules for the motion to Suspend the Rules do not specifically say that it must "adhere" to the immediately pending question in order to take precedence. Instead, it says "When business is pending, Suspend the Rules takes precedence over any motion if it is for a purpose connected with that motion." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 260) In my view, a motion related to voting is sufficiently connected to a motion for the Previous Question, provided that it relates to one or more of the motion(s) the Previous Question applies to.

Additionally, I would note that the text specifically notes that Motions Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls "can be moved while an order for the Previous Question is in effect on the votes to which they apply. They yield to the privileged motions, and to a motion to Lay on the Table moved while the question to which they are applied is pending." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 283) Although it is not entirely clear, my reading of these sentences is that such a motion would also take precedence over a pending motion for the Previous Question, even although the motion is related to the method of voting on the main motion and not the Previous Question. While the motion Delegate B proposes is, strictly speaking, a motion to Suspend the Rules and not a Motion Related to Methods of Voting and the Polls, it seems sufficiently similar in kind that the same logic would apply.

11 hours ago, Alex M. said:

Is it in order to move that voting on a resolution be by unit if that procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for elections, but not for resolutions? (My opinion: no, since it violates the fundamental principle of one person, one vote, and the provision in the bylaws only applies to elections, meaning for resolutions the fundamental principle applies and cannot be suspended.)

No, it is absolutely not in order, and I agree with your reasoning as to why.

So to sum up, the member may seek recognition to make a motion such as the one he proposed, but the particular motion he proposed should be ruled out of order by the chairman.

Therefore, it appears that (other than the fact that the chair needs to remind members that they need to seek recognition before making these motions), everything happened as it should have.

Edited April 26, 2020 at 03:29 PM by Josh Martin