Rhonda Posted May 3, 2023 at 07:53 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2023 at 07:53 PM Has anyone used a motion to suspend rules to enable member not voting on prior resolution or member voting on the losing side to move for reconsideration (not at committee level)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 3, 2023 at 08:39 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2023 at 08:39 PM You could suspend the rules to permit someone voting on the losing side to move to reconsider. Reconsidering in a different session may present a problem, no matter who were to move it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 3, 2023 at 09:36 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2023 at 09:36 PM On 5/3/2023 at 3:53 PM, Rhonda said: Has anyone used a motion to suspend rules to enable member not voting on prior resolution or member voting on the losing side to move for reconsideration (not at committee level)? Yes, it was done at a convention of the National Association of Parliamentarians and caused quite a stink (so I heard, I wasn't there). In any event, the rule requiring that this motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side is designed as a protection against its dilatory use by a defeated minority (37:10(a)) and hence is not one that can be suspended except under some rather extraordinary circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted May 4, 2023 at 12:43 AM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 12:43 AM If a member of the losing side is not able to find a qualifying member willing to make the motion, there is little hope that the motion, Reconsider, would be adopted. I see nothing to be gained by moving to suspend the rules that interfere with a member on the losing side making the motion. An alternate route is for the member to obtain the floor and very briefly express the desire for a qualifying member to come forward and make the proper motion. Forget all the rigamarole about suspending the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 4, 2023 at 01:14 PM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 01:14 PM On 5/3/2023 at 5:36 PM, Dan Honemann said: Yes, it was done at a convention of the National Association of Parliamentarians and caused quite a stink (so I heard, I wasn't there). In any event, the rule requiring that this motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side is designed as a protection against its dilatory use by a defeated minority (37:10(a)) and hence is not one that can be suspended except under some rather extraordinary circumstances. Would doing so create a breach of a continuing nature? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 4, 2023 at 01:38 PM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 01:38 PM On 5/4/2023 at 9:14 AM, J. J. said: Would doing so create a breach of a continuing nature? If by this question you are positing a situation where a motion is made to suspend the rules in order to allow a member who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider and this motion is stated by the chair, voted on, and declared to have been adopted, then no, I do not think that this will create a breach of a continuing nature. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 4, 2023 at 02:06 PM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 02:06 PM On 5/4/2023 at 9:38 AM, Dan Honemann said: If by this question you are positing a situation where a motion is made to suspend the rules in order to allow a member who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider and this motion is stated by the chair, voted on, and declared to have been adopted, then no, I do not think that this will create a breach of a continuing nature. I agree. However, based on the definition in 39:1, I would not class a motion adopted by two-thirds or more of the members voting as being dilatory. It is obviously not an attempt to "obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 4, 2023 at 02:36 PM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 02:36 PM On 5/4/2023 at 10:06 AM, J. J. said: I agree. However, based on the definition in 39:1, I would not class a motion adopted by two-thirds or more of the members voting as being dilatory. It is obviously not an attempt to "obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly." Adoption of a motion obviously is never dilatory. With respect to the rule in question here, it is the making a motion to suspend the rule concerning eligibility to make a motion to reconsider that is usually dilatory, and should not be entertained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 4, 2023 at 05:30 PM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 05:30 PM On 5/4/2023 at 10:36 AM, Dan Honemann said: Adoption of a motion obviously is never dilatory. With respect to the rule in question here, it is the making a motion to suspend the rule concerning eligibility to make a motion to reconsider that is usually dilatory, and should not be entertained. That begs the question. I can, easily, see situations where moving to suspend the rules in this case will not " obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly," but will express that overwhelming will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 4, 2023 at 06:43 PM Report Share Posted May 4, 2023 at 06:43 PM Way back when we had a lengthy discussion of this question in this thread, and all are welcome to review it. We didn't manage to come to much of an agreement then, and I suspect that we will not be able to do so now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts