Previous Question and Subsequent Motion to Vote by a Specified Method

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/22/2022 at 11:56 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Now, if I'm wrong, and Member B's suggestion is not in order because of the Previous Question, then the only practical difference I see is that the chair would have to advise Member B to wait until after the vote is taken on ordering a counted rising vote before moving that the vote be taken by ballot, in effect relying on the order in which members can obtain the floor instead of the presumably more logical order prescribed by RONR.

If you are wrong, and the order for the previous question precludes not only amendments but use of the device of filing blanks (which I believe to clearly be the case), then something such as the following would be a proper scenario:

Member A: Mr. President!

Chair: For what purpose does the member rise?

Member A: I move that the vote on the pending main motion be taken by a counted rising vote. (Second.)

Chair: It is moved and seconded to vote on the main motion by a counted rising vote.

Member B (interrupting): Mr. President, I would prefer that the vote be taken by ballot.

Member C : I second that.

Chair: Then the chair suggests that you vote against the immediately pending motion, and if it is defeated a motion to take the vote on the main motion by ballot will then be in order.  The previous question has been ordered on the main motion, and this order applies to the immediately pending motion to vote by a counted rising vote, precluding its amendment or employment of the device of filling blanks.  [The chair will then proceed to put the question on the motion to vote on the main motion by a counted rising vote]. 

RONR (12th ed.) 30:4 does indeed say that "when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time", but this should not be taken to mean that, if amendments are precluded by an order for the previous question, filling blanks is fine.

[Weldon Merritt]

I don't know about anyone else, But I think Mr. Gerber's suggested method makes the most sense.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/26/2022 at 6:44 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I don't know about anyone else, But I think Mr. Gerber's suggested method makes the most sense.

But the question isn't what procedure may make the most sense to all of us in any given situation.  Our job is to recognize and apply the rule or rules in RONR which are applicable to that situation.  Hopefully, these rules do in fact make sense in virtually all circumstances to which they apply, but that does not mean that everyone will think that the rule in RONR makes the most sense in every particular case.

I assume you will agree that, at least as a general rule, an order for the previous question will preclude use of the device of filing blanks.  For example, if the main motion in your scenario is "that Lodge No. 432 renovate the headquarters at a cost not to exceed $300,000”, when this motion becomes immediately pending subject to the order for the previous question, it will not be in order to attempt to create a blank by moving that one be created as described in 12:95(b), nor will it be in order for the chair to suggest the creation of a blank as described in 12:95(c).

As best I can determine, your and Mr. Gerber's reasoning seems to be that, although 16:19 tells us that, as a general rule, the order for the previous question in your scenario will apply to any other motions that may take precedence over the main motion, if the motion that takes precedence is a motion to determine the method of voting on the main motion, what is said in 30:4 creates some sort of exception to the general rule.  Language somewhat similar to that found in 30:4 is also found in the last sentence of 13:7(6), in 31:3, and in 46:30, but I doubt if they also constitute exceptions to the general rule. Certainly the procedure used in the example found in 13:26 cannot be used if the motion to commit is subject to an order for the previous question.

 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/27/2022 at 12:29 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Certainly the procedure used in the example found in 13:26 cannot be used if the motion to commit is subject to an order for the previous question.

If the motion to commit that was used in that example ("that the resolution be referred to a committee to be appointed by the chair.") was pending when the previous question was ordered, how would you see the details added? One method I see is that the adoption of Commit would exhaust the order for the previous question. The chair would then complete the details. 

But is there a way to complete the motion to Commit before it is put to a vote?

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/27/2022 at 6:17 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If the motion to commit that was used in that example ("that the resolution be referred to a committee to be appointed by the chair.") was pending when the previous question was ordered, how would you see the details added? One method I see is that the adoption of Commit would exhaust the order for the previous question. The chair would then complete the details. 

But is there a way to complete the motion to Commit before it is put to a vote?

If the motion to commit that was used in that example ("that the resolution be referred to a committee to be appointed by the chair.") was pending when the previous question was ordered, and is then or later becomes immediately pending, the chair should put the question on it to a vote at once, without allowing any debate or amendment, and if it is adopted, the chair will then follow the procedures outlined in some detail in 13:11-14.

And this is, I think, particularly instructive in connection with our discussion of the handling of motions relating to methods of voting, since such motions are similar to incomplete motions to commit that have been adopted. Unlike the general case, these are, in effect, blanks that must be filled. I therefore do agree with Messrs. Gerber, Merritt, et al, that the handling of motions to determine the method of voting is not governed by the general rule prohibiting use of the device of filling blanks when considering a motion which is the subject of an order for the previous question.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/28/2022 at 6:31 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I therefore do agree with Messrs. Gerber, Merritt, et al, that the handling of motions to determine the method of voting is not governed by the general rule prohibiting use of the device of filling blanks when considering a motion which is the subject of an order for the previous question.

This seems to be different from your original opinion. Have you changed your opinion or did I misunderstand your original opinion (or your current one)?

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/28/2022 at 10:30 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

This seems to be different from your original opinion. Have you changed your opinion or did I misunderstand your original opinion (or your current one)?

It is indeed different from my previously stated opinion in this thread.   

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I hope it is not me, but now I am thoroughly lost.  Can you please state your current opinion?

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/28/2022 at 10:40 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I hope it is not me, but now I am thoroughly lost.  Can you please state your current opinion?

In my opinion, the handling of motions to determine the method of voting is not governed by the general rule prohibiting use of the device of filling blanks when considering a motion which is the subject of an order for the previous question.

[Josh Martin]

On 12/28/2022 at 9:44 AM, Dan Honemann said:

In my opinion, the handling of motions to determine the method of voting is not governed by the general rule prohibiting use of the device of filling blanks when considering a motion which is the subject of an order for the previous question.

So in other words, the rule of 30:4 would be followed in such cases. Correct?

"In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time" RONR (12th ed.) 30:4

Edited December 28, 2022 at 03:59 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/28/2022 at 10:58 AM, Josh Martin said:

So in other words, the rule of 30:4 would be followed in such cases. Correct?

"In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time" RONR (12th ed.) 30:4

Yes.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 12/28/2022 at 8:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It is indeed different from my previously stated opinion in this thread.   

Thank you. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you both, @Weldon Merritt and @Dan Honemann.

[Dan Honemann]

This is not my favorite way to begin a new year, but I am afraid that I must disavow everything that I posted just a few days ago (Dec 28) as being my revised opinion, one different from my previously stated opinion in this thread.  There were four such posts by me that morning, all four of which I am now retracting.  Maybe it was something I had for breakfast that morning.  😒

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/1/2023 at 8:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

This is not my favorite way to begin a new year, but I am afraid that I must disavow everything that I posted just a few days ago (Dec 28) as being my revised opinion, one different from my previously stated opinion in this thread.  There were four such posts by me that morning, all four of which I am now retracting.  Maybe it was something I had for breakfast that morning.  😒

 

And I was thinking to post that I hadn't changed my mind, so we were in agreement, but then I thought that would be superfluous, but now maybe it's not.

If RONR said what General Robert wrote on page 169 of Parliamentary Law, would you still have the same opinion? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/1/2023 at 8:51 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

And I was thinking to post that I hadn't changed my mind, so we were in agreement, but then I thought that would be superfluous, but now maybe it's not.

If RONR said what General Robert wrote on page 169 of Parliamentary Law, would you still have the same opinion? 

I don't think it is very helpful, in attempting to understand what RONR says, to dwell on what it would mean if it said something else, but in any event, I'm not sure what it is that General Robert wrote on page 169 of PL that you think is of such significance.  

[Rob Elsman]

On 12/28/2022 at 9:40 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I hope it is not me, but now I am thoroughly lost.  Can you please state your current opinion?

Well, then, I'm going to retract my "thank you both" post and agree completely with Ms. Harlos.  I'm suffering from intellectual whiplash.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/1/2023 at 11:16 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Well, then, I'm going to retract my "thank you both" post and agree completely with Ms. Harlos.  I'm suffering from intellectual whiplash.

And for that I apologize, but if you simply ignore what I posted on Dec. 28, my views on this should be reasonably clear.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/1/2023 at 10:34 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I'm not sure what it is that General Robert wrote on page 169 of PL that you think is of such significance

This is what it says:

“Various questions arise, in connection with voting, which are usually settled by general consent, but may require formal motions and votes. They are incidental to the pending question and therefore are in order while it is pending, sometimes even after a vote has been taken on that question. They cannot be debated or have any subsidiary motion, except to amend, applied to them. They require a majority vote for their adoption. One of the most common of these incidental motions is one prescribing the method by which the vote shall be taken when it is desired to have it taken in some other way than by the voice or by show of hands. In the chapter on Voting all the usual methods are described. If one form is suggested or moved, any one may suggest or move another form. Instead of treating the second as an amendment, it is usual to proceed as in filling blanks, putting the question on the various forms suggested in the order of the time and trouble required for taking the vote, as follows: (1) Ballot; (2) Roll-Call, or Yeas and Nays; (3) Division and Count; (4) Rising.” (emphasis added)

This indicates to me that no priority is given to the form of voting first moved, and that other forms moved or suggested by members are not treated as ways of perfecting the pending incidental motion, but rather as equal alternatives that should be voted on in a logical sequence. So although the method of proceeding on the vote is as in filling blanks, I still don't see this as actually creating and filling a blank in a pending motion.

I think it is more akin to the procedure when different members move different forms of the Previous Question when a series of questions is pending, which RONR describes as having "an effect similar to amendment" (16:5(6)) applied to a motion (i.e., Previous Question) that is not itself amendable.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/1/2023 at 4:43 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

This is what it says:

“Various questions arise, in connection with voting, which are usually settled by general consent, but may require formal motions and votes. They are incidental to the pending question and therefore are in order while it is pending, sometimes even after a vote has been taken on that question. They cannot be debated or have any subsidiary motion, except to amend, applied to them. They require a majority vote for their adoption. One of the most common of these incidental motions is one prescribing the method by which the vote shall be taken when it is desired to have it taken in some other way than by the voice or by show of hands. In the chapter on Voting all the usual methods are described. If one form is suggested or moved, any one may suggest or move another form. Instead of treating the second as an amendment, it is usual to proceed as in filling blanks, putting the question on the various forms suggested in the order of the time and trouble required for taking the vote, as follows: (1) Ballot; (2) Roll-Call, or Yeas and Nays; (3) Division and Count; (4) Rising.” (emphasis added)

This indicates to me that no priority is given to the form of voting first moved, and that other forms moved or suggested by members are not treated as ways of perfecting the pending incidental motion, but rather as equal alternatives that should be voted on in a logical sequence. So although the method of proceeding on the vote is as in filling blanks, I still don't see this as actually creating and filling a blank in a pending motion.

I don't see a great deal of difference between what is said on page 169 of PL, which is:

"If one form is suggested or moved, any one may suggest or move another form. Instead of treating the second as an amendment, it is usual to proceed as in filling blanks, putting the question on the various forms suggested in the order of the time and trouble required for taking the vote, as follows: (1) Ballot; (2) Roll-Call, or Yeas and Nays; (3) Division and Count; (4) Rising.”

and what is said in 30:04, which is:

"In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time." 

General Robert said that, instead of treating the second motion or suggestion as an amendment "it is usual to proceed as in filling blanks" and RONR tells us that, if different methods are suggested, "they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks".  Not much difference between the two.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that both General Robert and RONR are telling us that, in these instances, these differing motions or suggestions are not really to be treated as filling blanks, nor are we actually to proceed as in filling blanks, but instead we are to treat them in some sort of unstated, modified version of filling blanks, the biggest difference being, I assume, that the rules stated in 12:104-105 are not applicable.  In other words, we are actually to proceed as if we are filling a blank in a motion that has already been adopted, as described in the last sentence of 12:105.  

Have I got this right?  If so, I respectfully disagree.

On 1/1/2023 at 4:43 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think it is more akin to the procedure when different members move different forms of the Previous Question when a series of questions is pending, which RONR describes as having "an effect similar to amendment" (16:5(6)) applied to a motion (i.e., Previous Question) that is not itself amendable.

16:5(6) demonstrates rather clearly that, if RONR wants to describe a process that is neither an amendment nor an instance of filling a blank, it can do a good job of it, not leaving it up to us to create it.

[Rob Elsman]

Okay. I think I am back on track. Mr. Honemann's reply of December 27, 11:29 a.m., seems to be his operative one. And, I agree with it. Sorry for the intellectual overload. I was just all over the place for a little while.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am glad you are following it.  I have given up - thoroughly confused.  Though if I am following half as well as I think I might be, I agree with Mr. Gerber.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/2/2023 at 12:26 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I am glad you are following it.  I have given up - thoroughly confused.  Though if I am following half as well as I think I might be, I agree with Mr. Gerber.

I'm sure this will make him very happy.

[Shmuel Gerber]

  

On 1/2/2023 at 9:06 AM, Dan Honemann said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that both General Robert and RONR are telling us that, in these instances, these differing motions or suggestions are not really to be treated as filling blanks, nor are we actually to proceed as in filling blanks, but instead we are to treat them in some sort of unstated, modified version of filling blanks, the biggest difference being, I assume, that the rules stated in 12:104-105 are not applicable.  In other words, we are actually to proceed as if we are filling a blank in a motion that has already been adopted, as described in the last sentence of 12:105.  

Have I got this right?  If so, I respectfully disagree.

I'm still saying what I said before: «My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them as filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored. There would not then be any need to vote on a pending motion relating to voting "as amended".»

Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of how this is handled when an order for the Previous Question is in effect, do you agree that when multiple suggestions are made, and a majority vote is attained for one method of voting, this decides the question on how the vote on the main motion is to be taken, and no incidental motion on the method of voting remains pending after "filling blanks" in this situation? (I think the language on page 169 of PL somewhat more clearly implies this to be the case than does the language of RONR (30:4).)

Maybe this is indeed some sort of unstated, modified version of filling blanks, but there is no universal procedure for the treatment of "filling blanks" to begin with. There are various procedures detailed at more length in RONR that are all called filling blanks, but they are not all treated the same way, including:

• The prototypical case is that a blank can be created in a pending amendable motion by striking out something from the motion. For this type of blank, "the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question or other pending question that contained the blank. When the blank is filled, the chair must immediately state the question on the adoption of the completed motion" (12:104). It is specifically with regard to the creation of such a blank that RONR (12:95(b)) states, "It is not in order to create a blank in a motion on which the Previous Question has been ordered," and I don't see this is necessarily applying to all other blank-filling procedures.

• You've already noted that filling a blank in a motion that has already been adopted is treated differently, as described in the last sentence of 12:105. A blank that was created may be pending when the Previous Question is ordered on the motion that contains the blank, in which case a reasonable opportunity to make suggestions must always be given (12:101, 12:105). But if the blank is still unfilled and the motion is adopted, the assembly proceeds to fill the blank, and in this case obviously no further vote is taken after the blank is filled.

• RONR says, "In completing a motion that simply refers “the main question to a committee”—either while the motion to Commit is pending or after it is adopted—the chair first asks, “To what committee shall the question be referred?” … But if different proposals are made, either in the form of primary and secondary amendments or simply as suggestions, the chair treats them as proposals to fill a blank (12:92–113) and puts them to vote in the following order until one receives a majority: (1) committee of the whole; … and (5) special (select, or ad hoc) committees, the one containing the largest number of members being voted on first" (13:12). When this happens after the motion to Commit is adopted without the essential details having been previously determined, then no further vote is taken on the motion to Commit. I think that your response to Dr. Kapur indicates that you agree that in such a case, members can make different suggestions even if an order for the Previous Question is in effect.

Selecting a method of voting on a motion (30:4), or a method of nominating (31:3), or a method of voting in an election (46:30) may be different in some respects than these, and voting in an election ("A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion “that ______ be elected” to the specified position," 46:1) may be different still. They all may be described as "filling blanks," but they are not all the same thing or subjected to identical rules.

[Dan Honemann]

No, I do not agree that when multiple suggestions are made, and a majority vote is attained for one method of voting, this decides the question on how the vote on the main motion is to be taken.  It may make some sense for this to be the case, but I see nothing at all in RONR that says that the rules stated in 12:104-5 are not applicable.

As best I can determine, the only time that the voting on suggestions to fill a blank not only decides which suggestion will fill the blank but also finally decides the motion containing the blank are those instances in which the assembly has already adopted the motion containing the blank, either directly, as described in the last sentence of 12-105 and in 13:11, or indirectly, as is the case when voting in an election of officers.  In such an election, the assembly has already decided that officers shall be elected. It is, in effect, filling the blank in a previously adopted motion “that ______ be elected” to the specified position.

I'm afraid that we may have to agree to disagree as to the meaning of what is said in 30:4. It is tempting to think about this as filling a blank in a previously adopted motion to vote on a question in some form other than by voice, by show of hands, or by Division (rising), but this is simply not the case.

I do not know if we will actually differ with respect to the issue of how this is handled when an order for the Previous Question is in effect.  I have already stated that, in my opinion, the device of filling blanks cannot be applied to a pending motion which is already subject to a previously adopted order for the previous question.  As Mr. Martin has already noted, RONR specifically states that "It is not in order to create a blank in a motion on which the Previous Question has been ordered." RONR (12th ed.) 12:95 

Mr. Merritt originally posited a specific factual situation and then asked "is a member who wants to take the vote by a different method simply out of luck? Or would amendment of the motion be in order notwithstanding the PQ order?"  My answer to the first question is yes, he's out of luck, and my answer to the second question is that proposing an amendment will not be in order.