Previous Question on Consent Calendar

[J Berg]

RONR (12th ed) 16.2 states that the adoption of Previous Question does not prevent incidental motions.  After Previous Question has been adopted for a series of motions on a consent calendar, is it in order for one member to request to remove items from the consent calendar prior to the vote on the remainder?

Edited October 21, 2020 at 05:24 PM by J Berg
deletion of reference of Division of a Question

[Atul Kapur]

I'm assuming that the special rule of order provides that the matters are considered in gross. RONR (12th ed.) 41:32

I see that you deleted a reference to the incidental motion Division of a Question, which explicitly says it is in order after the previous question has been ordered.

If the items are unrelated, I would say that the demand to divide is in order until "the question on adopting the series has actually been put to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 27:10

The period of time between the previous question being ordered and the question actually being put is short, but such a demand would be allowed during it.

[Rob Elsman]

5 hours ago, J Berg said:

After Previous Question has been adopted for a series of motions on a consent calendar...

If this means what it seems to say, the motion for the Previous Question is not in order.  The fact that an assembly uses a consent calendar does not suspend the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time.

[Nathan Zook]

6 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

If this means what it seems to say, the motion for the Previous Question is not in order.  The fact that an assembly uses a consent calendar does not suspend the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time.

My understanding is that a consent calendar is effectively a compound motion to approve all of the included items.  As it is now one motion addressing unrelated issues, any issue can be separated out by the demand of any member.

[Rob Elsman]

One motion for the Previous Question cannot be applied to more than one main motion.  This is true whether there is a consent calendar or not.

[Josh Martin]

7 hours ago, J Berg said:

RONR (12th ed) 16.2 states that the adoption of Previous Question does not prevent incidental motions.  After Previous Question has been adopted for a series of motions on a consent calendar, is it in order for one member to request to remove items from the consent calendar prior to the vote on the remainder?

I think the answer to this question ultimately depends on the organization's special rules of order governing the use of a consent calendar, but generally I would concur with Dr. Kapur.

1 hour ago, Nathan Zook said:

My understanding is that a consent calendar is effectively a compound motion to approve all of the included items.  As it is now one motion addressing unrelated issues, any issue can be separated out by the demand of any member.

A consent calendar is established by the adoption of one or more special rules of order. As a result, what exactly a consent calendar is and what exactly the rules are governing its use will depend on the rules that a particular assembly has adopted.

"The matters listed on it are taken up in order, unless objected to, in which case they are restored to the ordinary process by which they are placed in line for consideration on the regular agenda. The special rule of order establishing a consent calendar may provide that, when the matters on the calendar are called up, they may be considered in gross or without debate or amendment. Otherwise, they are considered under the rules just as any other business, in which case the “consent” relates only to permitting the matter to be on the calendar for consideration without conforming to the usual, more onerous, rules for reaching measures in the body." RONR (12th ed.) 41:32

RONR alludes to a possible rule which provides that the matters are considered in gross without debate or amendment (unless objected to). As a result, there is no need to order the Previous Question on the consent calendar. It does not mention a rule which provides that members may speak in debate on any motion on the consent calendar (without any request to consider that item separately), but that the items are then voted on in gross. It is certainly conceivable, however, that such a rule might be adopted. In such circumstances, I think it is certainly reasonable to view this as "effectively a compound motion to approve all of the included items" and that the Previous Question may be ordered to end debate.

28 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

One motion for the Previous Question cannot be applied to more than one main motion.  This is true whether there is a consent calendar or not.

RONR notes that "Sometimes a series of independent resolutions relating to completely different subjects is offered by a single main motion in the same way. In the latter case—where the subjects are independent—any resolution in the series must be taken up and voted on separately at the demand of a single member." RONR (12th ed.) 10:25

In an assembly which has a special rule of order providing that the items on the consent calendar are adopted in gross (unless pulled for separate consideration), isn't this essentially what the consent calendar is?

And if not, and if you are correct that the Previous Question cannot be ordered in the manner described, what is the proper way for the assembly to swiftly end debate in this instance? A motion to Suspend the Rules?

Edited October 22, 2020 at 12:31 AM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

If the motions in the consent calendar are to be taken up in gross, they are undebatable and unamendable, so the Previous Question is not in order.  If debate and amendment are to be allowed, each main motion must be taken up in order, one after the other.  RONR (12th ed.) 41:32.

[Atul Kapur]

28 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

If the motions in the consent calendar are to be taken up in gross, they are undebatable and unamendable, so the Previous Question is not in order.

Where are you getting this from? In gross does not equate to "undebatable and unamendable."

As Mr. Martin has noted above, a special rule of order may very well be written "which provides that members may speak in debate on any motion on the consent calendar (without any request to consider that item separately), but that the items are then voted on in gross." This would be unusual, yes, but definitely possible.

And note that 41:32 says, "The special rule of order establishing a consent calendar may provide that, when the matters on the calendar are called up, they may be considered in gross or without debate or amendment."

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

As Mr. Martin has noted above, a special rule of order may very well be written "which provides that members may speak in debate on any motion on the consent calendar (without any request to consider that item separately), but that the items are then voted on in gross." This would be unusual, yes, but definitely possible.

I actually don't even know that this would be that unusual. The sorts of assemblies which adopt consent calendars (public bodies) also often consist of members who like to hear themselves talk, so it would not surprise me that such an assembly might adopt rules which permit members to wax poetically on items on the consent calendar, even although this does somewhat defeat the purpose of using a consent calendar in the first place.

[Rob Elsman]

I wish to reiterate that a subsidiary motion cannot be applied to more than one main motion simultaneously.  To do so implies that there are multiple main motions pending at one time, which violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (J.J., are you there? 😊). RONR (12th ed.) 5:4.

[Rob Elsman]

It might be worth repeating Mr. Honemann's opinion that a rule of order that violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law cannot be adopted as a special rule of order; rather, such rule needs to be included in the society's bylaws.

I completely agree with Mr. Honemann on this.  He is spot on.

[Dan Honemann]

My thanks to our long-time friend for his words of support, and I feel rather badly that on this rare occasion I cannot reciprocate. When multiple main motions are offered under one enacting motion, no rule is violated. The responses posted here by Messrs. Kapur and Martin are correct.

[Rob Elsman]

I certainly did not intend to imply that I was somehow blind to RONR (12th ed.) 10:25.  Perhaps my response was not artful, but what I am getting at is that the Previous Question cannot be applied to multiple main motions simultaneously.  I still believe that to be true.  RONR (12th ed.) 6:3 says that "Subsidiary motions...a main motion [emphasis mine]".

Edited October 22, 2020 at 04:39 PM by Rob Elsman

[Dan Honemann]

Well, as so often happens, you may be on to something, but I have to admit that it never would have occurred to me that when, for example, the report of a convention's Committee on Standing Rules is pending for adoption (59:30-32), it would not be in order to move the Previous Question.