Special Orders interrupting business

[Laura Meade]

Can you confirm what happens when the time arrives for a special order? Do you announce the order as pending, or do you put all pending questions to a vote first? 41:53 and 41:65 seem to conflict. 

41:53 says, "But when the designated hour arrives, the special order automatically interrupts any business that may be pending except: (a) a motion related to adjournment or recess; (b) a question of privilege; (c) a special order that was made before the special order set for the present hour was made; or (d) the special order for a meeting, as described below. The chair simply announces the special order at the proper time, as shown in 14:22."

41:65 says, "When the assigned time for taking up a topic in an agenda arrives, the chair announces that fact. Then he puts to a vote any pending questions without allowing further debate, unless someone immediately moves to lay the question on the table, postpone it, or refer it to a committee..."

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/19/2023 at 9:49 AM, Libran said:

Can you confirm what happens when the time arrives for a special order? Do you announce the order as pending, or do you put all pending questions to a vote first? 41:53 and 41:65 seem to conflict. 

41:53 says, "But when the designated hour arrives, the special order automatically interrupts any business that may be pending except: (a) a motion related to adjournment or recess; (b) a question of privilege; (c) a special order that was made before the special order set for the present hour was made; or (d) the special order for a meeting, as described below. The chair simply announces the special order at the proper time, as shown in 14:22."

41:65 says, "When the assigned time for taking up a topic in an agenda arrives, the chair announces that fact. Then he puts to a vote any pending questions without allowing further debate, unless someone immediately moves to lay the question on the table, postpone it, or refer it to a committee..."

41:65 relates to taking up topics in an agenda.  The procedure described in 41:65 applies whenever special rules orders are made at the same time for different hours, since in such instances it is implied that the vote on each one will be taken when the hour for the next one arrives, as noted in the last sentence of 41:54.

[J. J.]

On 12/19/2023 at 10:23 AM, Dan Honemann said:

41:65 relates to taking up topics in an agenda.  The procedure described in 41:65 applies whenever special rules are made at the same time for different hours, since in such instances it is implied that the vote on each one will be taken when the hour for the next one arrives, as noted in the last sentence of 41:54.

"Special rules?" 

[Richard Brown]

On 12/19/2023 at 7:04 PM, J. J. said:

"Special rules?" 

I picked up on that, too.  I'm hoping he means "special orders".

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/20/2023 at 1:23 AM, Richard Brown said:

I picked up on that, too.  I'm hoping he means "special orders".

Yes, I certainly meant "special orders".  I've made the change.

[Laura Meade]

To make sure I understand, if another motion (for example a motion from a committee or a general order) is pending (with any subsidiary motions), it is set aside temporarily -- interrupted, but not disposed of -- and the the special order is taken up immediately. The chair automatically comes back to the other business when the special order is disposed of.  Do I have that part right?

But if you are considering another special order when the second one comes up, you need to vote on the first one (or refer, postpone, or lay it on the table) before you take up the second one.  The interrupted general order will be able to be taken up after the special order is disposed of, but the previous special order must be disposed of first.  Am I understanding that correctly?  I'm trying to figure out how the chair handles these. Thanks.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/20/2023 at 6:16 AM, Libran said:

To make sure I understand, if another motion (for example a motion from a committee or a general order) is pending (with any subsidiary motions), it is set aside temporarily -- interrupted, but not disposed of -- and the the special order is taken up immediately. The chair automatically comes back to the other business when the special order is disposed of.  Do I have that part right?

Yes, you have this right.  This is the general rule.

 

On 12/20/2023 at 6:16 AM, Libran said:

But if you are considering another special order when the second one comes up, you need to vote on the first one (or refer, postpone, or lay it on the table) before you take up the second one.  The interrupted general order will be able to be taken up after the special order is disposed of, but the previous special order must be disposed of first.  Am I understanding that correctly?  I'm trying to figure out how the chair handles these. Thanks.

Here I think you have in mind the rule stated in the last sentence of 41:54, but you need to note that this rule applies only in instances in which special orders set for different hours have been made at the same time, but this seldom, if ever, occurs except in the case of adoption of an agenda.

[Josh Martin]

As noted, the rules on this matter vary depending on whether the assembly has adopted an agenda including special orders. If an agenda has been adopted containing special orders, the rule in 41:65 is controlling - when the time for a special order arrives, the chair "puts to a vote any pending questions without allowing further debate, unless someone immediately moves to lay the question on the table, postpone it, or refer it to a committee..."

If we are not dealing with an adopted agenda, but are instead dealing with an assembly following the standard order of business (or special order of business prescribed by rule), and there are various orders of the day established at various times, then the rules on this subject vary depending on:

• Whether the pending business is a general order or special order
• Whether the business for the assigned time is a general order or special order
• When the special orders were created

The following responses assume an assembly which is not following an adopted agenda.

On 12/20/2023 at 5:16 AM, Libran said:

To make sure I understand, if another motion (for example a motion from a committee or a general order) is pending (with any subsidiary motions), it is set aside temporarily -- interrupted, but not disposed of -- and the the special order is taken up immediately. The chair automatically comes back to the other business when the special order is disposed of.  Do I have that part right?

Yes.

On 12/20/2023 at 5:16 AM, Libran said:

But if you are considering another special order when the second one comes up, you need to vote on the first one (or refer, postpone, or lay it on the table) before you take up the second one.  The interrupted general order will be able to be taken up after the special order is disposed of, but the previous special order must be disposed of first.  Am I understanding that correctly?  I'm trying to figure out how the chair handles these. Thanks.

It depends.

When multiple special orders conflict, the special order created earlier has "rank" over special orders created later.

So if the time for a special order arrives, and that special order outranks the pending special order, then the pending special order is set aside, the higher ranking special order is taken up, and the other special order is taken up after that special order is disposed of.

On the other hand, if the pending special order has higher rank (because it was created earlier), then the assembly continues to consider that special order freely, and after it is completed, the other special order is taken up.

Suppose, for example, the assembly, at a meeting, adopts a motion to make Item X a special order for 4 PM at the next regular meeting. About 30 minutes later, the assembly adopts a motion to make Item Y a special order for 3 PM at the next regular meeting. In this example, Item X has higher rank, and if Item Y is not complete by 4 PM, then Item X will interrupt consideration of Item Y.

But if the order had been reversed, and if the assembly had made Item Y a special order first, then Item X would not interrupt Item Y, and it would have to wait until Item Y was completed.

Suppose, however, that the assembly had created both items as special orders at the same time, by a single vote (such as, for example, if both items were on an agenda). In that instance, neither special order has "rank" over the other. As a result, when the time arrives for Item Y, then the rule kicks in where Item X must still be disposed of first... but as swiftly as possible, without further debate or amendment.

Edited December 21, 2023 at 11:03 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/19/2023 at 8:04 PM, J. J. said:

"Special rules?" 

I see that Dan edited that, which is good.  But I note that there was no indication under the message that it had been edited, which is odd--not bad, just odd.

(and my wife says I never notice things)

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/20/2023 at 10:26 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I see that Dan edited that, which is good.  But I note that there was no indication under the message that it had been edited, which is odd--not bad, just odd.

(and my wife says I never notice things)

So what I posted at 6:07 AM this morning doesn't suffice?  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/20/2023 at 10:44 AM, Dan Honemann said:

So what I posted at 6:07 AM this morning doesn't suffice?  

It was more than sufficient, in fact the edits shown in the original were unassailable in all particulars.

I was not commenting on the content of either message, but only on the technical fact that the message board, which usually notes the fact and time of edits, apparently did not do so in this instance.  No negative inferences should be drawn.  

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/20/2023 at 10:53 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

It was more than sufficient, in fact the edits shown in the original were unassailable in all particulars.

I was not commenting on the content of either message, but only on the technical fact that the message board, which usually notes the fact and time of edits, apparently did not do so in this instance.  No negative inferences should be drawn.  

I'm not familiar with the interface for other users, but moderators have to check a box to turn on the notice that a post has been edited.

Moderators can also see the notice that a post has been edited regardless of whether that checkbox has been turned on. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/20/2023 at 11:28 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'm not familiar with the interface for other users, but moderators have to check a box to turn on the notice that a post has been edited.

Moderators can also see the notice that a post has been edited regardless of whether that checkbox has been turned on. 

I suspected it was something along those lines.  Thanx.

Plain users are offered an optional text input field to enter the reason for the edit, but have no check box affecting the notice that it has been edited.

[Laura Meade]

Thanks to all who helped me understand these questions.