Considering more than one question

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm inclined to believe that no fundamental principle of parliamentary law can be negated by anything less than a bylaw provision.

So you couldn't have two questions at a time without a bylaw provision? 

[Dan Honemann]

40 minutes ago, J. J. said:

So you couldn't have two questions at a time without a bylaw provision? 

No. Only one question can be considered at a time.

[J. J.]

12 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No. Only one question can be considered at a time.

And only a bylaw provision would permit that?

 

[Dan Honemann]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

And only a bylaw provision would permit that?

 

Only a bylaw or higher level rule, but any such rule would be very ill-advised.

[J. J.]

That would be inconsistent with the text of RONR and some of your past comments.

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm inclined to believe that no fundamental principle of parliamentary law can be negated by anything less than a bylaw provision.

 

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

So you couldn't have two questions at a time without a bylaw provision? 

 

24 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No. Only one question can be considered at a time.

 

11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

And only a bylaw provision would permit that?

 

 

6 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Only a bylaw or higher level rule, but any such rule would be very ill-advised.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the phrase "higher level rule," doesn't the exception in RONR (12th ed.) 25:4 challenge that assertion? The wording in that paragraph refers to the rule that no member can make two motions at the same time. But with their making, two motions are then being considered at the same time. For example, if someone otherwise ineligible to do so, moves to suspend the rules and reconsider a particular motion, when the assembly votes isn't it considering both whether to suspend the rules and whether to reconsider the vote on the motion?

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, but it's no worse than a motion to sand and paint the woodshed.  That's not two motions.

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding the phrase "higher level rule," doesn't the exception in RONR (12th ed.) 25:4 challenge that assertion? The wording in that paragraph refers to the rule that no member can make two motions at the same time. But with their making, two motions are then being considered at the same time. For example, if someone otherwise ineligible to do so, moves to suspend the rules and reconsider a particular motion, when the assembly votes isn't it considering both whether to suspend the rules and whether to reconsider the vote on the motion?

The fundamental principle of parliamentary law being referred to here is the fundamental principle embodied in the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (RONR, 12th ed., 5:4, 25:9)

A motion to suspend the rules and agree to (whatever), is a single motion. It may contain two parts, but these parts are being offered under one enacting motion.

 

[J. J.]

40 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The fundamental principle of parliamentary law being referred to here is the fundamental principle embodied in the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (RONR, 12th ed., 5:4, 25:9)

A motion to suspend the rules and agree to (whatever), is a single motion. It may contain two parts, but these parts are being offered under one enacting motion.

 

 

Well, how about a consent calendar or a "series of independent resolutions or motions? (21:10)"

[Dan Honemann]

5 minutes ago, J. J. said:

 

Well, how about a consent calendar or a "series of independent resolutions or motions? (21:10)"

21:10??

10:25 deals with, as it says, a series of resolutions offered by a single main motion. The special rule by which a consent calendar (41:32) is established may provide that matters on the calendar may be considered in gross, just as, for example, proposed standing rules of a convention may be considered, but these are, in fact, separate motions offered under one enacting motion (59:32).

To expand on this just a bit, I think this fundamental principle we are considering is meant to say nothing more than that two separate and distinct motions cannot be considered at the same time unless they are offered under a single enacting motion, in which event they are subject to the rules relating to division of a question contained in 27:1-15.  For example, if main motion A has been made and is pending, main motion B cannot be made and become pending along with main motion A.  This is a rule which cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote.

 

[Atul Kapur]

3 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

To expand on this just a bit, I think this fundamental principle we are considering is meant to say nothing more than that two separate and distinct motions cannot be considered at the same time unless they are offered under a single enacting motion, in which event they are subject to the rules relating to division of a question contained in 27:1-15.

I think the part I've bolded hasn't been made explicit previously. It does seem to significantly enfeeble the fundamental principle, since this exception is very broad.

[Dan Honemann]

15 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I think the part I've bolded hasn't been made explicit previously. It does seem to significantly enfeeble the fundamental principle, since this exception is very broad.

But this is why separate and distinct motions offered under a single enacting motion must be divided upon the demand of a single member.

[Atul Kapur]

Here's where I'm getting hung up and request clarification. Bear with me as I explain my train of thought.

This particular fundamental principle requires unanimous consent (because any individual member can demand that the motions be separated).

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

two separate and distinct motions cannot be considered at the same time unless they are offered under a single enacting motion, in which event they are subject to the rules relating to division of a question contained in 27:1-15.

But earlier you've said

21 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm inclined to believe that no fundamental principle of parliamentary law can be negated by anything less than a bylaw provision.

to which you later added, "or higher level rule" in the situation of two motions being considered at the same time.

So that would mean that this fundamental principle includes a provision for its suspension by a means less than a bylaw (i.e., unanimous consent).

That would be the only fundamental principle to do so, correct? If so, it surprises me because it's counter to my understanding of fundamental principles.

[Dan Honemann]

The fundamental principle cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote.

If multiple separate, independent motions are offered under a single enacting motion (which violates no rule), they must be divided upon the demand of a single member. This is in recognition of the rationale behind the principle we are considering.