Same motion coming up every month

[Guest Tom]

I belong to a private club. 83 years old and going strong. We smoke in the club. There is a few members that continually, every month, make a motion to ban smoking. Is there a way to limit the amount of times this motion can be made.

[Atul Kapur]

You could adopt the motion.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/9/2022 at 8:09 PM, Atul Kapur said:

You could adopt the motion.

Yes, that obviously would preclude its being made again. I assume, however, that you oppose the motion and would like to prevent it from even being made. The short answer is that there are very few options for doing that. Under RONR, a failed motion can be made again (renewed) at any future session, no matter how many times it has been made and defeated before.

I suppose that if you can muster enough support, you could adopt a special rule of order specifying that a failed motion cannot be made again until some specified number of meetings has intervened. But be careful what you wish for, as this could backfire. There could very well be a failed motion that you really want to be considered again later. And while to rules could be suspended to allow it notwithstanding the special rule, that would take a two-thirds vote.

A better approach, in my opinion, would be for someone who opposes the motion to gain the floor as soon as possible after the motion is made and move the Previous Questions. This requires a second, and a two-thirds vote. But if adopted, then the assembly will vote on the motion with no further debate. If, as you imply, most members oppose the motion, it could be defeated pretty quickly 

[Josh Martin]

On 11/9/2022 at 9:25 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

A better approach, in my opinion, would be for someone who opposes the motion to gain the floor as soon as possible after the motion is made and move the Previous Questions. This requires a second, and a two-thirds vote. But if adopted, then the assembly will vote on the motion with no further debate. If, as you imply, most members oppose the motion, it could be defeated pretty quickly 

Objection to Consideration of the Question could shut the motion down even faster.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/10/2022 at 7:40 AM, Josh Martin said:

Objection to Consideration of the Question could shut the motion down even faster.

Yes, that's true, and I thought about including that as part of my advice. Although I realize it could be used for any main motion, I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members. But that's just my opinion, and I suppose I should have included that option.

[Rob Elsman]

Just for the record, I do not subscribe to Mr. Merritt's opinion. 😐

[Josh Martin]

On 11/10/2022 at 9:11 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes, that's true, and I thought about including that as part of my advice. Although I realize it could be used for any main motion, I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members. But that's just my opinion, and I suppose I should have included that option.

I understand your point, however, I would note that the circumstance described here is a case in which the motion has been repeatedly made at every monthly meeting. In such a case, it would seem to me that even although members may not have felt this way when the motion was first made, members now might quite reasonably feel that "it would be strongly undesirable for the motion even to come before the assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 26:1

Edited November 10, 2022 at 06:16 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/10/2022 at 10:11 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes, that's true, and I thought about including that as part of my advice. Although I realize it could be used for any main motion, I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members. But that's just my opinion, and I suppose I should have included that option.

I agree.  The only time I've seen Object to Consideration used in practice was to prevent consideration of a truy objectionable motion that fell just short of being flatly out of order.  And it still requires two-thirds concurrence, just as is the case with the Previous Question, but it does have the advantage of being able to prevent any debate, even if the original mover has claimed first right of recognition.

[Richard Brown]

I tend to agree with Mr. Martin's position.  I'm not aware of anything in RONR which limits the use of Objection to Consideration to any particular types of objections or reasons for objections.  I'm of the opinion that if the members (or enough members) object to the consideration of a motion for any reason, the motion is appropriate. It doesn't matter what the reason is. And, as Mr. Martin pointed, it requires one less vote than does immediately moving the Previous Question. Also, unlike Mr. Novisielski, I have seen Objection to Consideration used several times to prevent consideration of a motion which the assembly just didn't want to deal with when there was nothing particularly objectionable about the motion being objected to.

[Rob Elsman]

The purpose of Objection to the Consideration of a Question is clearly stated in RONR (12th ed.) 26:1.  The most significant words are "avoid" and "strongly undesirable".  The motion is in order when it is made for the purpose stated there.

Any member whose best judgment is that it is "strongly undesirable" for an original main motion to be placed before the assembly should not hesitate to raise the objection.  In this particular case, the continual renewal, session after session, of the motion to ban smoking has apparently become "strongly undesirable", at least to some sizable faction of the assembly.  Apparently, this faction thinks it is best to "avoid" the question being considered at each session.  Were I in the chair, I would admit the objection.  Since the objection is not debatable, little time will be spent dealing with it; and, if the objection is sustained, the assembly can "avoid" having to go through the mechanics of handling and rejecting the same motion, session after session.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/11/2022 at 11:16 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Were I in the chair, I would admit the objection. 

So would I. That may seem inconsistent with my earlier statement that "I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members," but it really isn't. I would not make the motion due to my personal feeling, nor would I encourage someone to make it. But if I were presiding and someone made it, I would not rule it out of order. I agree that nothing in the RONR text suggests that it is so limited, and in any event, whether something is "strongly undesirable" is very subjective.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/11/2022 at 1:16 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The purpose of Objection to the Consideration of a Question is clearly stated in RONR (12th ed.) 26:1.  The most significant words are "avoid" and "strongly undesirable".  The motion is in order when it is made for the purpose stated there.

Any member whose best judgment is that it is "strongly undesirable" for an original main motion to be placed before the assembly should not hesitate to raise the objection.  In this particular case, the continual renewal, session after session, of the motion to ban smoking has apparently become "strongly undesirable", at least to some sizable faction of the assembly.  Apparently, this faction thinks it is best to "avoid" the question being considered at each session.  Were I in the chair, I would admit the objection.  Since the objection is not debatable, little time will be spent dealing with it; and, if the objection is sustained, the assembly can "avoid" having to go through the mechanics of handling and rejecting the same motion, session after session.

If I were presiding, I would also admit it.  It's just that I would be more reticent to move it than some.

I can't see any reason to rule it out of order in the given case.