Previous Question and Subsequent Motion to Vote by a Specified Method

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

But another suggestion is not an amendment - it cues the chair to treat as if a blank, and filling blanks are not amendments.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:54 AM, Dan Honemann said:

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've figured out what the source of the trouble is. General Robert wrote, "… 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…" (PL, p. 169) and "When different methods are suggested they are usually treated not as amendments, but like filling blanks…" (ROR, p. 96). But in RONR this was changed to "when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks…"

The procedure I've suggested (and that I thought was intended in Robert's Rules) for dealing with suggestions for different methods of voting may not be treating them as filling blanks, but it is certainly like filling blanks. 🙂

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/3/2023 at 10:25 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I've figured out what the source of the trouble is. General Robert wrote, "… 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…" (PL, p. 169) and "When different methods are suggested they are usually treated not as amendments, but like filling blanks…" (ROR, p. 96). But in RONR this was changed to "when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks…"

The procedure I've suggested (and that I thought was intended in Robert's Rules) for dealing with suggestions for different methods of voting may not be treating them as filling blanks, but it is certainly like filling blanks. 🙂

 

Spoken like a true copyeditor.  😀

[Rob Elsman]

...but not like an attorney? 😆

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/3/2023 at 10:25 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The procedure I've suggested (and that I thought was intended in Robert's Rules) for dealing with suggestions for different methods of voting may not be treating them as filling blanks, but it is certainly like filling blanks. 🙂

I think the operative word here is neither as nor like.  Rather, it is treating.  If it were actually a case of filling blanks, there would be no need to decide how to treat them.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/6/2023 at 11:35 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think the operative word here is neither as nor like.  Rather, it is treating.  If it were actually a case of filling blanks, there would be no need to decide how to treat them.

I don't know if this is intended to be a serious response to a couple of posts with smiley faces attached, but if it is I will leave it up to my distinguished colleague to respond.  For that, however, you will have to wait until tomorrow.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/7/2023 at 10:18 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't know if this is intended to be a serious response....

Then the desired effect has been achieved. 😇

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

The effect so far with me is I have no idea what the RONR prescribed right answer is here.

[Rob Elsman]

What's left to not understand? I think we've beat it to death, myself. 🤮

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Oh its beaten to death with no resolution.  Its like a series that you're into that gets cancelled mid-story.

[Rob Elsman]

I will try to quell my upset stomach and help you if you can frame a specific, narrow question that seems to be unresolved to you, but it's a little too much to re-cover all of the same ground again. For that, I would suggest a thorough re-reading of the whole topic. 🤢

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I have re-read it.  I am letting it go. The chances of ever encountering this are less likely than me becoming pregnant.  And I am far beyond that age.

Edited January 9, 2023 at 03:10 PM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/9/2023 at 10:10 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I have re-read it.  I am letting it go. The chances of ever encountering this are less likely than me becoming pregnant.  And I am far beyond that age.

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.

Setting aside for a moment the question as to use of the device of filling blanks in this situation, do you agree with this response?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I *think* I do disagree.  I believe Mr. Gerber's answers is correct (unless I am vastly misunderstanding him) where the Chair can see that there is another suggestion and treat it like filling blanks.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/9/2023 at 11:32 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

I *think* I do disagree.  I believe Mr. Gerber's answers is correct (unless I am vastly misunderstanding him) where the Chair can see that there is another suggestion and treat it like filling blanks.

And by this do you mean that the chair may use the device of filling blanks as described in detail in 12:92-113, or something else?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 1/9/2023 at 9:30 AM, Dan Honemann said:

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.

Setting aside for a moment the question as to use of the device of filling blanks in this situation, do you agree with this response?

Based on the plain language of the applicable provisions, I think I will have to agree (much as I wish the answer were different). It just seems to me that there should be some way for another member to propose a different method of voting and have it considered rather than having to gamble on the first method proposed being defeated. And filling a blank seems to be the best way to do it. Fortunately, the likelihood of the situation occurring probably is small. But it would be nice to have a good way too handle it if it does occur. 

Mr. Honemann, do you agree that even if filling a blank would not otherwise be in order, the rules could be suspended to allow it?

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:40 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Mr. Honemann, do you agree that even if filling a blank would not otherwise be in order, the rules could be suspended to allow it?

 

Yes, the rule prohibiting amendment (and hence the use of the device of filling blanks) imposed by the adoption of an order for the Previous Question is a rule that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:40 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Mr. Honemann, do you agree that even if filling a blank would not otherwise be in order, the rules could be suspended to allow it?

 

On 1/10/2023 at 10:04 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, the rule prohibiting amendment (and hence the use of the device of filling blanks) imposed by the adoption of an order for the Previous Question is a rule that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

Which, by the way, is the reason why, if Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote it supersedes a previously adopted order for the Previous Question to the extent that they conflict, as I have noted in the thread to which you provided a link in your initial post.  😀

[Rob Elsman]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:00 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

But another suggestion is not an amendment - it cues the chair to treat as if a blank, and filling blanks are not amendments.

You might want to re-read Mr. Martin's reply of December 22nd. He's got this exactly right.

 

 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:40 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Mr. Honemann, do you agree that even if filling a blank would not otherwise be in order, the rules could be suspended to allow it?

 

 

On 1/10/2023 at 8:04 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, the rule prohibiting amendment (and hence the use of the device of filling blanks) imposed by the adoption of an order for the Previous Question is a rule that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote.

 

 

 

On 1/10/2023 at 8:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

Which, by the way, is the reason why, if Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote it supersedes a previously adopted order for the Previous Question to the extent that they conflict, as I have noted in the thread to which you provided a link in your initial post.  😀

Yes, I don't recall if I said so in the previous post, but after all of the discussion there, I agree with that. And, of course, with your response to my last question here (which I was already pretty sure would be the answer).