Postponing Multiple Items at Once

[laser158689]

Is there a good way to handle postponing multiple items at once?  

Example:  multiple appointments where the nominees couldn't make interviews and our standard way of handling that is to postpone.

Context:  We can often have 10 appointments to handle at a meeting and if, say, three of them didn't make all of their interviews, we'd like to simply postpone all three - ideally with a single vote.

[Rob Elsman]

No.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm assuming these items are on some sort of agenda, or the question would be hard to understand.  If there are candidates who can't make the meeting, why not just skip them?  When their item comes up, if they're not present, don't move the item, and move on to the next.

Any items on an an agenda that are not disposed of at the current meeting would come up under Unfinished Business at the next.  So it would not even take one vote.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:35 PM, laser158689 said:

Is there a good way to handle postponing multiple items at once?  

Example:  multiple appointments where the nominees couldn't make interviews and our standard way of handling that is to postpone.

Context:  We can often have 10 appointments to handle at a meeting and if, say, three of them didn't make all of their interviews, we'd like to simply postpone all three - ideally with a single vote.

A motion to Suspend the Rules could be used to postpone multiple items at once.

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/4/2023 at 8:50 PM, Josh Martin said:

A motion to Suspend the Rules could be used to postpone multiple items at once.

Mr. Martin and I might be interpreting the original post differently. My sense of it is that the desired action implies that multiple main motions would somehow be pending simultaneously, which would violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time. I personally do not think that the rules can be suspended to accomplish what the poster wants to do. As each main motion becomes pending, a subsidiary motion, Postpone to a Certain Time, would be in order, applied to the one pending main motion.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/5/2023 at 8:20 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Martin and I might be interpreting the original post differently. My sense of it is that the desired action implies that multiple main motions would somehow be pending simultaneously, which would violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time. I personally do not think that the rules can be suspended to accomplish what the poster wants to do. As each main motion becomes pending, a subsidiary motion, Postpone to a Certain Time, would be in order, applied to the one pending main motion.

I suppose I will first note that in the event no one objects to the postponement, postponing each item as it comes up is probably the simplest course of action anyway. The chair could request unanimous consent, and then a formal vote would not be needed.

However, I continue to maintain that it would be in order for a member to postpone multiple orders of the day, even although only one of those orders of the day is actually pending (or possibly none of them are pending), by means of a motion to Suspend the Rules. I do not believe this would violate any of the categories of rules which cannot be suspended.

In the alternative, another idea which occurs to me if it is necessary to minimize the number of votes taken on this matter is that when the agenda is pending for adoption (since I imagine this group uses an agenda), an amendment could be offered to the agenda to move all three of these items to the end of the agenda (or even to remove them from the agenda altogether), and then adjourn the meeting before these items are reached, in which event they would be Unfinished Business at the next meeting.

I should also add, of course, that since I recall from previous questions by the OP that this is a public body, it is very possible the assembly has its own rules on this matter, and therefore it would be advisable for the members of the body to consult its clerks and attorneys on this question.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with Mr. Martin's responses and suggestions.

[laser158689]

Thanks for the thoughts on this.

We normally handle this by "suspending the rules to combine the items for voting purposes".

To fill in some of the blanks...

We do not use an agenda.  We do not have an order of business specified in our controlling documents.  

We do have a consent calendar procedure in our controlling documents, but it refers to "resolutions", not motions, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to handle this situation.

We have a Call, compiled by the Town Clerk.  We go through it in order (generally, as things are sent to that office, they are appended, with unfinished business and general orders/postponements simply listed first).  Unless an item is withdrawn, the expectation is that we will take it up in some way.  Other than the Consent Calendar and items that are combined, we rarely stray from the order in the Call.

[Atul Kapur]

I agree that suspend the rules is a very good solution.

On 5/5/2023 at 3:54 PM, laser158689 said:

consent calendar procedure in our controlling documents, but it refers to "resolutions", not motions, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to handle this situation.

A resolution is just a more formal way of presenting a motion, so I do not see why you treat them differently. 

[Josh Martin]

On 5/5/2023 at 2:54 PM, laser158689 said:

We do have a consent calendar procedure in our controlling documents, but it refers to "resolutions", not motions, so I don't think it'd be appropriate to handle this situation.

Does the word "resolution" have some special meaning for your assembly?

If not, I don't think this poses any particular barrier. So far as RONR is concerned, a resolution is simply a motion written in a particular format. To the extent that resolution does have a special meaning for your assembly, it seems this could be addressed by amending the rules relating to the consent calendar.

On 5/5/2023 at 10:18 PM, Atul Kapur said:

A resolution is just a more formal way of presenting a motion, so I do not see why you treat them differently. 

I concur with this so far as RONR is concerned, but in my experience, it is not unusual for a local legislative assembly to have a particular meaning for "resolution" prescribed by its rules or applicable law.

[laser158689]

Hmmm...  "Resolution" to my mind referred to the original item on the Call, which is written as such, as opposed to a motion to Postpone said Resolution.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/8/2023 at 11:05 AM, laser158689 said:

Hmmm...  "Resolution" to my mind referred to the original item on the Call, which is written as such, as opposed to a motion to Postpone said Resolution.

I think the distinction you are drawing is between main motions and secondary motions, e.g. a subsidiary motion such as Postpone.  Resolutions are typically offered as original main motions, but the only difference between that and an ordinary main motion is in the formatting.  From a parliamentary point of view, the two are handled identically.

[laser158689]

Here is the language governing our consent calendar...

Quote

There shall be a Consent Calendar on which shall be entered such resolutions as the Moderator, or in his absence the Moderator Pro Tempore, upon the suggestions of the Committee Chairpersons and District Chairpersons, shall designate, which shall be proposed to the RTM by the Moderator in the form of a Motion to Move to the Consent Calendar. All resolutions designated for action on the Consent Calendar shall be passed on motion without discussion unless, at any time prior to the motion for passage, a duly seconded motion of an RTM Member requests removal of a resolution from the Consent Calendar. In that event, the movant shall have three (3) minutes to address the RTM to show cause why there should be a removal, which time may be extended, in the Moderator’s discretion. The Moderator shall then call for a standing vote, and if at least twenty (20) Members vote in favor of removal, then such resolution shall be so removed and placed on the regular call. (Eff. 1/1/04; revised 12/13/04)

At the point in the meeting where the consent calendar is proposed, most of the members have only seen the items (actual resolutions) on the Call.

Would it be acceptable for the Moderator to include motions to postpone those items on the Consent Calendar, presumably suggested by a Committee or District Chairperson?

[Atul Kapur]

Presumably the resolutions are that you appoint person X to position Y. If you have not completed the process for 3 of the 8-10 appointments, then those 3 resolutions are  presumably incomplete. If that is the case, then they should be pulled from the consent calendar before a motion to adopt it is even made, because they are incomplete. 

Would that work?

[laser158689]

@Atul Kapur

I think the short answer is that the appointments come from (and are moved at meetings by) a separate branch of government (executive), the members of which are ex officio non-voting members of the legislative body.

We do not currently do postponements via the Consent Calendar.  That is a suggestion in the thread that I am trying to understand.

A motion to "suspend the rules to combine for voting purposes" the items to be postponed is made.  Each item is read and discussed (very briefly), then a single vote is taken.