Incidental Main Motions vs. Main Motions

[Larry R.]

It is my understanding that the five ranking privileged questions are not privileged if they are made while no business is pending. When this occurs, RONR 12th in 20:3 using "Recess" as the example, states that the motion is then handled as a main motion. Isn't it, in fact however, an incidental main motion in this example and if so, why doesn't Robert's make that clear to the reader?

[J. J.]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:57 AM, Larry R. said:

It is my understanding that the five ranking privileged questions are not privileged if they are made while no business is pending. When this occurs, RONR 12th in 20:3 using "Recess" as the example, states that the motion is then handled as a main motion. Isn't it, in fact however, an incidental main motion in this example and if so, why doesn't Robert's make that clear to the reader?

I doubt that Call the Orders of the Day is even a main motion of any type.

6:13 does make that distinction in regard to the other four privileged motions.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:57 AM, Larry R. said:

It is my understanding that the five ranking privileged questions are not privileged if they are made while no business is pending. When this occurs, RONR 12th in 20:3 using "Recess" as the example, states that the motion is then handled as a main motion. Isn't it, in fact however, an incidental main motion in this example and if so, why doesn't Robert's make that clear to the reader?

Well, all incidental main motions are main motions.

Why do you think it important that RONR, in 20:3, should make it clear that a motion to take a recess that is made when no question is pending is not just a main motion but an incidental main motion? 

[Larry R.]

My thought on this is that if an incidental main motion is different from a main motion insofar as the incidental main motion does not introduce substantive new business that an assembly needs to decide upon, as a main motion does, and in other areas in RONR 12 the two motions are differentiated from each other, then the references should be consistently stated as being either an incidental main motion or a main motion. Perhaps I'm overthinking this however. Thanks.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 2/11/2022 at 8:25 AM, Larry R. said:

Perhaps I'm overthinking this however.

Probably so. An IMM is handled procedurally the same as any other MM. The only significant different is that an Objection too Consideration of the Question can be applied to an original main motion, but not to an incidental main motion.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/11/2022 at 7:57 AM, Larry R. said:

It is my understanding that the five ranking privileged questions are not privileged if they are made while no business is pending.

This statement is an oversimplification. I think this statement is fully correct in regard to Recess and Fix the Time To Which to Adjourn, but for the other privileged motions this statement is either incorrect or the complete rule is more nuanced.

• Call for the Orders of the Day is always a privileged motion.
• The device of Raise a Question of Privilege is always privileged motion. This device is unnecessary if no motion is pending. The question of privilege itself might be handled either as a request (which is an incidental motion) or as a main motion (I think it may be either an original main motion or an incidental main motion depending on the subject matter, but I have not spent much time thinking about this). This remains correct whether or not the question of privilege was introduced through Raise a Question of Privilege. See RONR (12th ed.) 19:3.
• The motion to Adjourn is generally a privileged motion even if it is made while no motion is pending. It is an incidental main motion only if 1) the motion is qualified in some way, 2) a time for adjournment has been previously established, or 3) the effect of adjournment would be to dissolve the assembly, with no provision for another meeting. See RONR (12th ed.) 21:3.

 

On 2/11/2022 at 7:57 AM, Larry R. said:

Isn't it, in fact however, an incidental main motion in this example and if so, why doesn't Robert's make that clear to the reader?

An incidental main motion is a type of main motion, so the statement in 20:3 is correct.

On 2/11/2022 at 9:25 AM, Larry R. said:

My thought on this is that if an incidental main motion is different from a main motion insofar as the incidental main motion does not introduce substantive new business that an assembly needs to decide upon, as a main motion does, and in other areas in RONR 12 the two motions are differentiated from each other, then the references should be consistently stated as being either an incidental main motion or a main motion. Perhaps I'm overthinking this however. Thanks.

This is incorrect. What you are describing is the difference between an original main motion and an incidental main motion. Both original main motions and incidental main motions are main motions.

"An original main motion is a main motion that introduces a substantive question as a new subject. This is the motion most often used, and is the basic device by which a matter is presented to the assembly for possible action...

An incidental main motion is a main motion that is incidental to or relates to the business of the assembly, or its past or future action." RONR (12th ed.) 10:3-4

Edited February 11, 2022 at 04:46 PM by Josh Martin