Motion to postpone definitely

[rbk]

I would like to make a motion, debate it, debate it further at the next meeting, and then vote on it. To do that, my plan is to say “I move to postpone my motion to the next meeting” after initial debate has concluded, per RONR (12th ed.) 14:20(a). I'm hoping that there is a better way to do what I want to do — I'd rather not risk the small possibility that my motion to postpone will fail.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 7/29/2022 at 12:37 PM, rbk said:

I would like to make a motion, debate it, debate it further at the next meeting, and then vote on it.

Why? What are you trying to accomplish by doing this? 

[rbk]

On 7/29/2022 at 12:44 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Why? What are you trying to accomplish by doing this? 

Giving members advance notice of the motion might not be possible, and the issues raised by the motion are important. By postponing, I hope more people will attend the meeting where the motion will be decided. (The motion will appear in the minutes.) I'd also like to give people more time to think about the issues involved.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 7/29/2022 at 1:00 PM, rbk said:

Giving members advance notice of the motion might not be possible, and the issues raised by the motion are important. By postponing, I hope more people will attend the meeting where the motion will be decided. (The motion will appear in the minutes.) I'd also like to give people more time to think about the issues involved.

Instead of making the motion and trying to postpone it, you can simply give notice that you intend to make the motion at the next meeting. Such a notice is supposed to be placed in the minutes. You can also request permission to informally discuss the motion so people have a better understanding of the issue.

Alternatively, if you do make the motion and then move to postpone it, it's possible that if the motion to Postpone fails, it's because the assembly is ready to adopt the main motion right away. But even if the main motion fails, you can still give notice that you intend to move it again at the next meeting (if you think you can get more people to be in favor of it then).

[rbk]

On 7/29/2022 at 1:17 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Instead of making the motion and trying to postpone it, you can simply give notice that you intend to make the motion at the next meeting.

 

That's perfect. What would I say at the meeting to "give notice"?

 

On 7/29/2022 at 1:17 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

You can also request permission to informally discuss the motion so people have a better understanding of the issue.

 

What would I say during a meeting to request such permission? I assume that the Chair would decide whether to grant such permission. Is the Chair's decision subject to appeal?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/29/2022 at 1:51 PM, rbk said:

That's perfect. What would I say at the meeting to "give notice"?

 

10:49

Quote

MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I give notice that at the next meeting I will move to rescind the resolution adopted April 17, 20__, relating to…

CHAIR: Notice has been given that at the next meeting… [repeating the substance of the notice].

Make sure that the secretary records the notice in the minutes.

Edited July 29, 2022 at 06:18 PM by Gary Novosielski
cite

[Drake Savory]

On 7/29/2022 at 11:51 AM, rbk said:

What would I say during a meeting to request such permission? I assume that the Chair would decide whether to grant such permission. Is the Chair's decision subject to appeal?

Look up Informal Consideration 52:24-27.

And no it is not the decision of the Chair, but rather the assembly.  The recommended way to word the motion is (after the question has been stated by the Chair), " I move that the question be considered informally."  and in all honesty, I would phase it assuming unanimous consent as in, " I ask unanimous consent that question be considered informally." As it is a variation of a motion to Commit it does need to be seconded and passed by majority vote.  Also debate is limited to the issue of informality, not the original motion itself.  One drawback of this is that votes taken during informal consideration are the votes of the assembly.

One way that you could (try to) postpone the official vote until the next meeting is to move into the Committee of the Whole (seconded, debatable).  It allows more debate to be had and any votes are not final as it is the vote of the committee and must be adopted by the assembly.  Two issues to be aware of in this

1)  The Chair relinquishes his seat and a different member is appointed committee chair.  This person gives the report of the committee to the assembly, presumably at the next meeting.

 2)  It should be made clear that the votes of the Committee of the Whole are not final and the assembly is the one to hold the final vote.  We presume that this is at the subsequent meeting but there is nothing to stop a member to move to come out of the Committee of the Whole and vote on it at the same meeting.  

[Dan Honemann]

This thread is beginning to run so far off the rails that rbk will never be able to find it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 7/29/2022 at 1:51 PM, rbk said:

That's perfect. What would I say at the meeting to "give notice"?

See Gary's answer above.

On 7/29/2022 at 1:51 PM, rbk said:

On 7/29/2022 at 1:17 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

You can also request permission to informally discuss the motion so people have a better understanding of the issue.

 

What would I say during a meeting to request such permission? I assume that the Chair would decide whether to grant such permission. Is the Chair's decision subject to appeal?

"When notice of a bylaw amendment is given in open meeting, it cannot be considered at that time, except to be discussed informally and briefly at the discretion of the presiding officer (see also 43:31–34)." (57:14)

"4:8    For a member to begin to discuss a matter while no question is pending, without promptly leading to a motion, implies an unusual circumstance and requires permission of the assembly (see 33:22) in addition to obtaining the floor. In larger assemblies, this rule requires firm enforcement. In smaller meetings, it may sometimes be relaxed with constructive effect if the members are not accustomed to working under the standard rule. Unless the assembly has specifically authorized that a particular subject be discussed while no motion is pending, however, such a discussion can be entered into only at the sufferance of the chair or until a point of order is made; and in the latter case, the chair must immediately require that a motion be offered or the discussion cease."

"33:22    E. Request for Any Other Privilege. When a member desires to make a request not covered by one of the four types explained above—as, for example, a request to address remarks or make a presentation while no motion is pending—he rises, addresses the chair, and, as soon as he catches the presiding officer's attention, states his request. Although he does not have to wait for recognition and can make his request even though another member has been assigned the floor, he should never interrupt a member speaking unless sure that urgency justifies it. Generally, such matters are settled by unanimous consent or informally, but if there is an objection, a motion can be made to grant the request. If explanation is required, it can be requested or given, but this must not extend into debate. These requests should be treated so as to interrupt the proceedings as little as is consistent with the demands of justice."

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 7/29/2022 at 2:37 PM, Drake Savory said:

Look up Informal Consideration 52:24-27.

That's not what we're talking about here. Informal consideration, with respect to a motion that the assembly is actually considering, simply removes the limitation on the number of speeches each member may make in debate. My suggestion to rbk was that it is possible to request permission to informally discuss, at this meeting, the subject covered by the notice given at this meeting of a motion that will be brought up at the next meeting. Such a motion cannot be debated at all at this meeting, whether by informal consideration, in committee of the whole, or otherwise.

The purpose of the brief informal discussion at this meeting would be to familiarize the members with the topic so they can be better prepared for it at the next meeting, or possibly to lead the member who gave the notice to withdraw it or modify it in some way, or to offer a somewhat differently worded motion at the next meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

And just to see if we are all the way back on track, I would like rbk to tell us if this motion he wants to make is one of the motions described in 10:45.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 7/29/2022 at 3:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

And just to see if we are all the way back on track, I would like rbk to tell us if this motion he wants to make is one of the motions described in 10:45.

I was sort of hoping that no one would notice that I may have pulled a switch onto this particular spur, but I should have suspected that Dan would raise the yellow flag. 🙂

[Drake Savory]

On 7/29/2022 at 1:06 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

My suggestion to rbk was that it is possible to request permission to informally discuss

Gotcha now.  Discuss not debate/consider.

 

[rbk]

On 7/29/2022 at 3:11 PM, Dan Honemann said:

And just to see if we are all the way back on track, I would like rbk to tell us if this motion he wants to make is one of the motions described in 10:45.

On 7/29/2022 at 3:24 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I was sort of hoping that no one would notice that I may have pulled a switch onto this particular spur, but I should have suspected that Dan would raise the yellow flag. 🙂

I am honored to have two people who literally wrote the book of rules help me. Mr. Honemann, the motion I might make would ask the assembly to interpret a provision in our bylaws. At this point, it is not certain that I will need to make such a motion — I just want to be prepared.

[Josh Martin]

On 7/29/2022 at 3:21 PM, rbk said:

I am honored to have two people who literally wrote the book of rules help me. Mr. Honemann, the motion I might make would ask the assembly to interpret a provision in our bylaws. At this point, it is not certain that I will need to make such a motion — I just want to be prepared.

Please describe in more detail what you mean by "the motion I might make would ask the assembly to interpret a provision in our bylaws." Is this an Appeal from a Decision of the Chair? A motion to amend the bylaws? Something else?

[rbk]

On 7/29/2022 at 4:36 PM, Josh Martin said:

Please describe in more detail what you mean by "the motion I might make would ask the assembly to interpret a provision in our bylaws." Is this an Appeal from a Decision of the Chair? A motion to amend the bylaws? Something else?

Mr. Martin, the motion I might make is related to this discussion. I might need to ask the assembly to weigh "one vague provision against another."

[Josh Martin]

On 7/29/2022 at 3:47 PM, rbk said:

Mr. Martin, the motion I might make is related to this discussion. I might need to ask the assembly to weigh "one vague provision against another."

Okay, but that doesn't really answer my question. What, precisely, is the motion that is being made in this regard?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/29/2022 at 2:37 PM, Drake Savory said:

Look up Informal Consideration 52:24-27.

And you will find that it does not authorize discussion without a motion. It affects only the number of speeches one member can make on one question on one day.

[rbk]

On 7/29/2022 at 6:30 PM, Josh Martin said:

Okay, but that doesn't really answer my question. What, precisely, is the motion that is being made in this regard?

The Secretary sent an email to some members of our Department about our Annual Meeting that the President thought should not have been sent. As a result, the President asked to review drafts of all of the Secretary's emails related to the Annual Meeting. The Secretary agreed to this arrangement because he thought it would result in better communications.

Before the next Annual Meeting, the Secretary plans to send an email similar to the one the President found objectionable, and the Secretary expects the President to object. There are several ways to handle this potential confrontation, e.g.,

1. The Secretary can send the email despite the President's objections. As you said in our previous conversation, "there is nothing in RONR which would prevent anyone from sending out such an email, so I think it will be a high bar for the President to claim that 'general supervision of the affairs of the Department' gives him the authority to order the Secretary (or anyone) not to send a follow-up email with information pertaining to a meeting." But you also said that "I think there is sufficient ambiguity in this matter that the organization could reasonably reach an alternative interpretation."

2. The Secretary can ask members at a regular membership meeting to approve a resolution that would essentially allow the Secretary to do his job without interference from the President: "Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to send communications within the Department that the Secretary deems to be in the best interests of the Department and are consistent with the Secretary's duties and responsibilities under the bylaws."

Edited July 30, 2022 at 03:24 PM by rbk
clarity

[Drake Savory]

On 7/29/2022 at 8:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

And you will find that it does not authorize discussion without a motion. It affects only the number of speeches one member can make on one question on one day.

I admitted I was confused when Mr. Gerber said "informally discuss" thinking he meant debate i.e. Informal Consideration.  That along with moving into a Committee of the Whole seeming to do what the OP wanted, specifically discuss the motion without a vote that meeting and I thought Chapter 52 was where this thread was going. Mr. Gerber's posts after my original one, including pointing out 4:8 set me on the right path.

 

And I know that with informal consideration all votes are votes of the assembly which is why in my misunderstanding I went with CotW as the solution the original poster wanted and not IC.

Edited July 30, 2022 at 05:17 PM by Drake Savory

[Josh Martin]

On 7/30/2022 at 8:38 AM, rbk said:

The Secretary sent an email to some members of our Department about our Annual Meeting that the President thought should not have been sent. As a result, the President asked to review drafts of all of the Secretary's emails related to the Annual Meeting. The Secretary agreed to this arrangement because he thought it would result in better communications.

Before the next Annual Meeting, the Secretary plans to send an email similar to the one the President found objectionable, and the Secretary expects the President to object. There are several ways to handle this potential confrontation, e.g.,

1. The Secretary can send the email despite the President's objections. As you said in our previous conversation, "there is nothing in RONR which would prevent anyone from sending out such an email, so I think it will be a high bar for the President to claim that 'general supervision of the affairs of the Department' gives him the authority to order the Secretary (or anyone) not to send a follow-up email with information pertaining to a meeting." But you also said that "I think there is sufficient ambiguity in this matter that the organization could reasonably reach an alternative interpretation."

2. The Secretary can ask members at a regular membership meeting to approve a resolution that would essentially allow the Secretary to do his job without interference from the President: "Resolved, That the Secretary be authorized to send communications within the Department that the Secretary deems to be in the best interests of the Department and are consistent with the Secretary's duties and responsibilities under the bylaws."

Thank you for this additional information. I do not think I would, in fact, describe this as a motion to "interpret" the bylaws (which is good, because offering a main motion on such a matter is not really how such things are done). Rather, it is an ordinary main motion which authorizes the Secretary to send certain communications. It may well be that questions of interpretation arise from this motion due to a Point of Order and any subsequent appeal, but I do not think the motion, in itself, is a motion to interpret the bylaws.

With that issue settled, I think to answer Mr. Honemann's question, this is not "one of the motions described in 10:45."

[rbk]

On 7/30/2022 at 4:18 PM, Josh Martin said:

Thank you for this additional information. I do not think I would, in fact, describe this as a motion to "interpret" the bylaws (which is good, because offering a main motion on such a matter is not really how such things are done). Rather, it is an ordinary main motion which authorizes the Secretary to send certain communications. It may well be that questions of interpretation arise from this motion due to a Point of Order and any subsequent appeal, but I do not think the motion, in itself, is a motion to interpret the bylaws.

Are there other parliamentary procedures, short of amending the bylaws, that could be used to clarify vague bylaw language regarding the President's authority?

[Atul Kapur]

I think Mr. Martin is telling you one of those procedures. Make your motion. If the president believes that it is in conflict with the bylaws, they will rule it out of order, and you can appeal the ruling. The assembly will decide whether the motion is in accord with or in conflict with the bylaws, and by doing so will clarify its interpretation of the ambiguous language.