Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Leo

the incidental main motion to postpone indefinitely

Recommended Posts

On page 66, under incidental main motions corresponding to subsidiary motions, for each of the subsidiary motions except the previous question and lay on the table, there is a corresponding incidental main motion of the same name that can be made when no other motion is pending.

On page 126, under standard descriptive characteristics 2, postpone indefinitely can can be made only while a main question is immediately pending.

How are these two apparently contradictory statements be reconciled?

Can someone give an example of the motion to postpone indefinitely as an incidental motion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Leo said:

Can someone give an example of the motion to postpone indefinitely as an incidental motion?

I think you mean to ask if anyone can give an example of an incidental main motion corresponding to the subsidiary motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and if so, my response is that I cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example would be "I move that the endorsement for any candidate for mayor be postponed indefinitely."  That would be made when no business is pending.  It would be an incidental main motion, from what I can tell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Dan.

A questions related to postpone indefinitely is in the In Order Study Guide for the NAP Registration Examination, part II, question 14.

I was working with a group studying for the exam and could not think of an example.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, J. J. said:

"I move that the endorsement for any candidate for mayor be postponed indefinitely."

I believe the statements on pages 66 & 126, lead to the following.

If the motion stated above is immediately pending, the motion to postpone indefinitely is the subsidiary motion.

If the motion stated above is not pending the motion to postpone indefinitely cannot be made.

Therefore, the motion to postpone indefinitely cannot be made without a main motion immediately pending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Postpone Indefinitely is used to kill a main motion, it makes a certain kind of sense to me that there would not be a corresponding incidental main motion.

Edited by Rob Elsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Leo said:

I believe the statements on pages 66 & 126, lead to the following.

If the motion stated above is immediately pending, the motion to postpone indefinitely is the subsidiary motion.

If the motion stated above is not pending the motion to postpone indefinitely cannot be made.

Therefore, the motion to postpone indefinitely cannot be made without a main motion immediately pending.

Any time that a corresponding incidental main motion (IMM) is made, it is not the subsidiary.  A motion, for example, "To appoint a committee to review and update the bylaws," is not the subsidiary motion To Refer To a Committee.

A motion that the pending main motion that "That the assembly endorse the candidacy of James Thorton for US Senate"  be Postponed Indefinitely is a subsidiary motion.  A motion "that the endorsement for any candidate for US Senate be postponed indefinitely," is not a subsidiary motion.  The adoption of such a motion would prohibit the consideration of endorsing any candidate for the US Senate during that session.

Edited by J. J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Leo said:

If the motion stated above is not pending the motion to postpone indefinitely cannot be made.

Therefore, the motion to postpone indefinitely cannot be made without a main motion immediately pending.

Why could it not be made? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an example of an incidental main motion to postpone indefinitely on p. 14 of Parliamentary Law and it is noted there that since the motion practically rescinds something that was adopted, a 2/3 vote is required.  

Edited by George Mervosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does, indeed, but, for purposes of the modern common parliamentary law, I think such a motion should be re-framed as a motion to Rescind and treated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

He does, indeed, but, for purposes of the modern common parliamentary law, I think such a motion should be re-framed as a motion to Rescind and treated accordingly.

I would prefer it that way, as it may be easier to give notice to allow for a majority vote, and/or in a smaller assembly it may be easier to achieve a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but I think Leo was asking if it exists and if there was an example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

He does, indeed, but, for purposes of the modern common parliamentary law, I think such a motion should be re-framed as a motion to Rescind and treated accordingly.

Why would it be a motion to Rescind?

The same effect could be achieved by rejecting the motion "That the assembly endorse (someone deplorable) for US Senate."  If rejected it would suppress the question for the session by majority vote. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the example George gave us applied to a main motion that had been previously adopted.  The example is to postpone indefinitely the adopted main motion.  This is just confusing and old-fashioned.  The modern way to rescind a previously adopted main motion is to make a motion to Rescind.  Kiss the General's example good-bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think the example George gave us applied to a main motion that had been previously adopted.  The example is to postpone indefinitely the adopted main motion.  This is just confusing and old-fashioned.  The modern way to rescind a previously adopted main motion is to make a motion to Rescind.  Kiss the General's example good-bye.

There is a difference between it being applied to an existing motion and being made as a main motion.

The text currently does permit it.  I have no reason for ruling the motion "that the endorsement for any candidate for US Senate be postponed indefinitely," out of order.  I can see situations where it would not be dilatory.

Edited by J. J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

The modern way to rescind a previously adopted main motion is to make a motion to Rescind.

Agreed, but this still leaves open the question of how an incidental main motion to Postpone Indefinitely (or Postpone to a Certain Time) would work.

If it weren't for the condition that the incidental main motions share the same names as the subsidiary motions, I could see how Amend Something Previously Adopted could be the incidental main motion variant of Amend, and Rescind Something Previously Adopted could be the incidental main motion variant of Postpone Indefinitely, et cetera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I have no reason for ruling the motion "that the endorsement for any candidate for US Senate be postponed indefinitely." 

Does that sentence say what you intended to say?   Perhaps you meant to say "I have no reason for ruling the motion out of order?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

He does, indeed, but, for purposes of the modern common parliamentary law, I think such a motion should be re-framed as a motion to Rescind and treated accordingly

Thank you George. This will help with those studying for the RP exam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

He does, indeed, but, for purposes of the modern common parliamentary law, I think such a motion should be re-framed as a motion to Rescind and treated accordingly.

Thank you George. This will help those studying for the RP exam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Does that sentence say what you intended to say?   Perhaps you meant to say "I have no reason for ruling the motion out of order?"

You are correct.  I shall fix it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Leo said:

Thank you George. This will help with those studying for the RP exam.

 

6 minutes ago, Leo said:

Thank you George. This will help those studying for the RP exam.

I'm not sure how Mr. Elsman's posting ended up as me posting it, but I'm sure he accepts your thanks.

55 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

He does, indeed, but, for purposes of the modern common parliamentary law, I think such a motion should be re-framed as a motion to Rescind and treated accordingly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...