Debating a nondebatable motion

[Alex Meed]

If a member wishes to speak while a nondebatable question is pending, is that a motion to Suspend the Rules that prohibit debate on the motion, requiring a two-thirds vote; a Request for Any Other Privilege, namely the privilege of addressing the body, requiring a majority vote; or some unholy combination of the two (or something else entirely)?

Edited August 19, 2020 at 10:31 PM by Alex Meed

[Atul Kapur]

If the member wishes to debate the undebatable motion, that would require a suspension of the rules.

If the member wishes to gain the floor for some other purpose, then he should rise and seek recognition. The chair would ask "For what purpose does the member rise?" (In fact, that's how the member would seek recognition for the purpose of suspending the rules to be allowed to debate, as well.)

Depending on what other purpose the member has, it may require a suspension of the rules, a majority vote to grant a request, or it may not require any vote at all.

 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Alex Meed said:

If a member wishes to speak while a nondebatable question is pending, is that a motion to Suspend the Rules that prohibit debate on the motion, requiring a two-thirds vote; a Request for Any Other Privilege, namely the privilege of addressing the body, requiring a majority vote; or some unholy combination of the two (or something else entirely)?

The following rule may be of some assistance:

"Sometimes business may be expedited by allowing a few words of factual explanation while an undebatable motion is pending. The distinction between debate and asking questions or making brief suggestions should be kept in mind in this connection. The chair should be careful not to allow this type of consultation to develop into an extended colloquy between members or to take on the semblance of debate; and he should generally remain standing while the consultation takes place, to show that the floor has not been assigned." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 396)

If that doesn't answer what you had in mind, it would be helpful to know what it is the member wishes to speak about. If he wishes to speak in debate on the pending motion (which is not debatable), and that extends beyond the comments permitted by the rule above, there is no doubt that this would require a motion to Suspend the Rules, requiring a 2/3 vote. If the member intends to talk about something else, I think we know what that something else is in order to determine the proper tool.

It may also be helpful to know which nondebatable motion is pending.

[Alex Meed]

Let's say a motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt some resolution is pending. Immediately after the chairman states the question, a member rises and says, "M__. Chairman, I ask permission to address the body for up to three minutes." How should the chairman respond?

[Atul Kapur]

If I were in the chair, I would first ask if it is related to the resolution. If not, I would rule the request out of order.

If you are asking to speak to a motion that is undebatable, as Suspend the Rules is, then that is a separate motion to Suspend the Rules. It would require a 2/3 vote.

[Alex Meed]

6 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If not, I would rule the request out of order.

Why's that?

[Atul Kapur]

Because it's a dilatory request if it doesn't relate to the pending motion, which is to Suspend the Rules and adopt the resolution.

Putting it another way, the motion to Suspend the Rules only yields to those incidental motions that arise out of itself (RONR 11th ed., p. 261, lines 5-6). If you are not speaking to the resolution included with the pending motion to suspend, then the pending motion does not yield to your motion.

If what you have to say is so urgent, then you could move to Lay on the Table the motion to Suspend (and Adopt).

[Josh Martin]

58 minutes ago, Alex Meed said:

Let's say a motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt some resolution is pending. Immediately after the chairman states the question, a member rises and says, "M__. Chairman, I ask permission to address the body for up to three minutes." How should the chairman respond?

The chairman should respond "The chairman is not able to grant this permission. The chairman needs to know what the member's address is regarding in order to determine the appropriate motion to request the assembly for this permission."

18 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Because it's a dilatory request if it doesn't relate to the pending motion, which is to Suspend the Rules and adopt the resolution.

Putting it another way, the motion to Suspend the Rules only yields to those incidental motions that arise out of itself (RONR 11th ed., p. 261, lines 5-6). If you are not speaking to the resolution included with the pending motion to suspend, then the pending motion does not yield to your motion.

I would argue that a motion requesting permission to speak while the motion to Suspend the Rules is pending is a motion arising out of itself. Whether the speech is germane to the resolution is a separate (and suspendable) rule.

I do not think we can categorically say that the request is dilatory if it doesn't relate to the pending motion, although I admit I am having a difficult time imagining a case where it would not be dilatory.

18 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If what you have to say is so urgent, then you could move to Lay on the Table the motion to Suspend (and Adopt).

The motion to Lay on the Table cannot be applied to an incidental motion.

Edited August 20, 2020 at 03:38 AM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

18 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

The motion to Lay on the Table cannot be applied to an incidental motion.

My original answer, which Josh Martin quoted below, resulted from a mis-reading of his answer. My answer is posted below his.

Edited August 20, 2020 at 03:51 AM by Atul Kapur

[Josh Martin]

4 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

SDC 1 of Suspend the Rules says, "It yields to the motion to Lay on the Table ... when these motions are in order at the time according to the order of precedence of motions" (RONR 11th ed., p. 260, line 35 - p. 261, line 3)

Yes, that is correct. If a main motion was pending, and subsequently an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules was made, the motion to Suspend the Rules would yield to a motion to Lay on the Table. The motion to Lay on the Table would be applied to the main motion, not the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

The motion to Lay on the Table, however, can only be applied to a main motion. In the example presented here, no main motion is pending - only an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

Edited August 20, 2020 at 03:42 AM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

The combined motion Alex Reed uses as his example is an Incidental Main motion, so Lay on the Table could apply to it.

26 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I would argue that a motion requesting permission to speak while the motion to Suspend the Rules is pending is a motion arising out of itself. Whether the speech is germane to the resolution is a separate (and suspendable) rule.

In this case, where the motion to Suspend is combined with the motion to adopt a resolution, I argue that it needs to arise out of, not just the motion to suspend, but also the resolution combined with it.

[Rob Elsman]

All of the motions that have anything of any substance worth debating have been characterized as debatable.  There is no need to debate an undebatable motion, because there is nothing substantive to debate.  So, just don't do it.

Mr. Martin has already referenced the rule permitting brief, factual remarks with respect to undebatable motions.  These explanations are permitted, but they should not run into a speech.

[Josh Martin]

12 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

All of the motions that have anything of any substance worth debating have been characterized as debatable.  There is no need to debate an undebatable motion, because there is nothing substantive to debate.  So, just don't do it.

I am generally inclined to agree, but the example the OP later provided is a rather unusual circumstance, in which a motion to Suspend the Rules is being used to adopt a motion which would ordinarily be debatable without debate. So there arguably is something substantive to debate.

In such circumstances, however, I am generally inclined to think that if a member wishes to speak in debate on the motion the appropriate course of action is to vote against the motion to Suspend the Rules, so that the underlying main motion can subsequently be made and debated under the ordinary rules for main motions.

The OP has also been cagey over whether what the member wants to speak about is, in fact, debate on the motion, or if it is for some other mysterious purpose.

13 hours ago, Alex Meed said:

Let's say a motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt some resolution is pending. Immediately after the chairman states the question, a member rises and says, "M__. Chairman, I ask permission to address the body for up to three minutes." How should the chairman respond?

Mr. Meed, I really think it would be helpful if you would just come out and say exactly what you have in mind as to what the member wants to talk about for three minutes that is so important that it can't wait for the assembly to process an undebatable, unamendable motion, which generally does not take very long.

I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but my imagination has its limits, and I am struggling to think of a valid reason to do this.

Edited August 20, 2020 at 04:11 PM by Josh Martin

[Alex Meed]

On 8/20/2020 at 11:11 AM, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Meed, I really think it would be helpful if you would just come out and say exactly what you have in mind as to what the member wants to talk about for three minutes that is so important that it can't wait for the assembly to process an undebatable, unamendable motion, which generally does not take very long.

Sorry for the caginess—I've been trying to keep the post general, since it's a hypothetical situation, but I suppose the proper approach really depends on what exactly it is that the member wishes to speak about.

What inspired the question was if a member were to try to use their three minutes to discuss the pending question, in effect trying to circumvent the motion being undebatable. I suppose there are several permutations of that; they could come out and say they want to debate the motion, or they could more artfully describe some aspect of the motion they wish to speak on.

I suppose the upshot of this thread, though, is that the chair should ask the member what they wish to speak about, and has the authority to rule the request out of order if it doesn't sufficiently pertain to the pending business or to an urgent matter.

[Josh Martin]

8 hours ago, Alex Meed said:

Sorry for the caginess—I've been trying to keep the post general, since it's a hypothetical situation, but I suppose the proper approach really depends on what exactly it is that the member wishes to speak about.

What inspired the question was if a member were to try to use their three minutes to discuss the pending question, in effect trying to circumvent the motion being undebatable. I suppose there are several permutations of that; they could come out and say they want to debate the motion, or they could more artfully describe some aspect of the motion they wish to speak on.

I suppose the upshot of this thread, though, is that the chair should ask the member what they wish to speak about, and has the authority to rule the request out of order if it doesn't sufficiently pertain to the pending business or to an urgent matter.

Thank you. Based on the additional facts, the proper course of action would be for the member to move to Suspend the Rules in order to permit a three minute speech in debate on the motion in question. This would require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Thank you. Based on the additional facts, the proper course of action would be for the member to move to Suspend the Rules in order to permit a three minute speech in debate on the motion in question. This would require a 2/3 vote for adoption.

I agree and was going to suggest the same thing. My only hesitancy was in wondering whether it would be permissible to move to suspend the rules to allow Member A to speak for three minutes after the motion to suspend the rules and adopt a motion to do X has been made and seconded and is pending as opposed to having to make it all part of one three-part motion to “suspend the rules, adopt a motion to do X, and permit three minutes of debate“ (or “ And to permit member A to speak for three minutes on the motion)“  

In other words, must it be made as one three-part motion or can it be made after the motion is made to suspend the rules and adopt Motion X?

[Josh Martin]

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree and was going to suggest the same thing. My only hesitancy was in wondering whether it would be permissible to move to suspend the rules to allow Member A to speak for three minutes after the motion to suspend the rules and adopt a motion to do X has been made and seconded and is pending as opposed to having to make it all part of one three-part motion to “suspend the rules, adopt a motion to do X, and permit three minutes of debate“ (or “ And to permit member A to speak for three minutes on the motion)“  

In other words, must it be made as one three-part motion or can it be made after the motion is made to suspend the rules and adopt Motion X?

I think either of these is in order. As has been previously noted, the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules "yields to incidental motions arising out of itself" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 261). It seems to me that an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules to permit debate on the pending incidental motion to Suspend the Rules is a motion "arising out of itself." So I think it can be made after the motion is made to Suspend the Rules and adopt Motion X.

[Rob Elsman]

I find this whole thread doubtful.  It is true that the maker of an undebatable motion can give a brief, factual statement explaining the reason for the motion; however, the chair should carefully control both the amount of time being used and the content of the statement to ensure that the statement is merely factual and does not turn into a speech that goes into the advisability of adopting the motion in the way that is proper in debate.  Beyond this, I can see no practical reason for suspending the rules to debate the motion to Suspend the Rules, since there is nothing of substance to debate.  I lean toward the opinion that the motion is dilatory, if not outright absurd.

[Richard Brown]

I don’t think it’s either dilatory or absurd. In fact, I have seen the three part version of the motion used successfully many times. It is usually along these lines: “I move to suspend the rules and to adopt MotionX (or to consider Motion X) and to allow five minutes of debate”. 
 

 

Edited August 23, 2020 at 05:30 PM by Richard Brown
Added part in parentheses

[Richard Brown]

When I have seen it used in the manner I described in my comment above, it is usually in a convention at which the motion sought to be considered would be out of order at the time without a suspension of the rules.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

I can see no practical reason for suspending the rules to debate the motion to Suspend the Rules, since there is nothing of substance to debate.  I lean toward the opinion that the motion is dilatory, if not outright absurd.

If the only motion pending is the motion to Suspend, then I am inclined to agree.

However, in the situation presented by the OP, the motion to Suspend is combined with a motion to adopt a resolution. In that situation I disagree that the motion would be dilatory as there is something of substance to debate -- the resolution.

The situation is presented as a hypothetical one, but I have seen it occur "in the wild" (well, sort of. They were at meetings of parliamentarians).

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I find this whole thread doubtful.  It is true that the maker of an undebatable motion can give a brief, factual statement explaining the reason for the motion; however, the chair should carefully control both the amount of time being used and the content of the statement to ensure that the statement is merely factual and does not turn into a speech that goes into the advisability of adopting the motion in the way that is proper in debate.  Beyond this, I can see no practical reason for suspending the rules to debate the motion to Suspend the Rules, since there is nothing of substance to debate.  I lean toward the opinion that the motion is dilatory, if not outright absurd.

I would mention again that the motion to Suspend the Rules, in this particular instance, is a motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt some other main motion. So I would not agree that "there is nothing of substance to debate."

If I were a member of the assembly in question, I would probably vote against this motion as I would be of the opinion that if people actually wanted to debate this motion they should simply vote against the motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt, so that the underlying main motion can be made as an ordinary main motion, which would then be debatable. I would personally not look favorably upon a request that Member A, and Member A alone, should be permitted to speak for three minutes in debate on the motion. Notwithstanding this, I do not think the motion "is dilatory, if not outright absurd."

Edited August 23, 2020 at 06:01 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

Regrettably, I must disagree with the estimable Mr. Martin.  Again, I would stress that all the motions about which there is anything of substance to debate have been characterized by the authors as debatable in conformity with long-standing parliamentary law.

[Atul Kapur]

43 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

all the motions about which there is anything of substance to debate have been characterized by the authors as debatable

Except that the motion to Suspend the Rules is being used to suspend exactly that rule.

49 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

If I were a member of the assembly in question, I would probably vote against this motion as I would be of the opinion that if people actually wanted to debate this motion they should simply vote against the motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt, so that the underlying main motion can be made as an ordinary main motion, which would then be debatable. I would personally not look favorably upon a request that Member A, and Member A alone, should be permitted to speak for three minutes in debate on the motion. Notwithstanding this, I do not think the motion "is dilatory, if not outright absurd."

I agree with Mr. Martin's points in this paragraph.

I am starting to feel, however, that this hypothetical situation proposed by the OP might qualify as "dilatory, if not outright absurd." 😉

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 8/19/2020 at 11:19 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If what you have to say is so urgent, then you could move to Lay on the Table the motion to Suspend (and Adopt).

 

On 8/19/2020 at 11:31 PM, Josh Martin said:

The motion to Lay on the Table cannot be applied to an incidental motion.

 

On 8/19/2020 at 11:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

The motion to Lay on the Table, however, can only be applied to a main motion. In the example presented here, no main motion is pending - only an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

 

On 8/20/2020 at 12:01 AM, Atul Kapur said:

The combined motion Alex Reed uses as his example is an Incidental Main motion, so Lay on the Table could apply to it.

None of these are correct statements of the rules.

- It's true that Lay on the Table cannot be applied to Suspend the Rules, but there are other incidental motions to which Lay on the Table can be applied, such as a debatable Appeal that does not adhere to the pending question, or a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. (And it can also be applied to other non-main motions, such as a motion to Discharge a Committee or a motion to reconsider a main motion.)

- "The incidental motion to Suspend the Rules … Can be made at any time that no question is pending …" The fact that it's made when no motion is pending does not make it into a main motion. A motion to "suspend the rules and agree to …" is specifically given as an example of a motion to Suspend the Rules. (And if it were an incidental main motion, then it would be debatable, which would defeat its purpose.)