Baofeng Ma Posted February 5, 2024 at 07:32 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2024 at 07:32 PM (edited) One main motion with Postpone Indefinitely pending. Division of a question has been raised and adopted. Question: Does each of two parts of the main motion carry with Postpone Indefinitely pending? RONR 27:3 Edited February 5, 2024 at 10:18 PM by Baofeng Ma correction Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 5, 2024 at 08:00 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2024 at 08:00 PM I think so. I know the question has come up in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 5, 2024 at 08:55 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2024 at 08:55 PM On 2/5/2024 at 2:32 PM, Baofeng Ma said: One main motion with Postpone Indefinitely pending. Division of a question has been raised and adopted. Question: Does each of two parts of the main motion carry with Postpone Indefinitely pending? RONR 27:3 Depending what you mean by "carry". With all the proper assumptions about divisibility satisfied, and the question properly divided, then Postpone Indefinitely would be immediately pending on both of the resulting motions. Well, I guess immediately pending on only one of them but also pending on the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baofeng Ma Posted February 5, 2024 at 11:49 PM Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2024 at 11:49 PM (edited) On 2/5/2024 at 3:00 PM, J. J. said: I think so. I know the question has come up in the past. I searched and did not find any similar topic. It appears to me that if the division of a question is adopted, the assembly does not want to kill the question. So, should Postpone Indefinitely be considered to be ignored? Or alternatively, with Postpone Indefinitely carried, can I assume that the assembly would like to decide whether each of two parts is killed? Edited February 6, 2024 at 12:00 AM by Baofeng Ma Edit to become more accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 6, 2024 at 01:40 AM Report Share Posted February 6, 2024 at 01:40 AM On 2/5/2024 at 5:49 PM, Baofeng Ma said: I searched and did not find any similar topic. It appears to me that if the division of a question is adopted, the assembly does not want to kill the question. So, should Postpone Indefinitely be considered to be ignored? Or alternatively, with Postpone Indefinitely carried, can I assume that the assembly would like to decide whether each of two parts is killed? I concur with my colleagues that Postpone Indefinitely is not "ignored" if Division of the Question is adopted. Rather, PI would be a pending motion for each of the new motions. It may well be that the assembly ultimately chooses to postpone indefinitely one, both, or neither of the motions. Division of a Question implies the assembly wishes to consider the two parts of the question separately. It does not necessarily imply the assembly's views on the ultimate disposition of either part of the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 6, 2024 at 01:05 PM Report Share Posted February 6, 2024 at 01:05 PM I, too, recall that this question has previously arisen on this forum. As I recall, Mr. Martin's response is correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baofeng Ma Posted February 6, 2024 at 10:43 PM Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2024 at 10:43 PM On 2/5/2024 at 8:40 PM, Josh Martin said: I concur with my colleagues that Postpone Indefinitely is not "ignored" if Division of the Question is adopted. Rather, PI would be a pending motion for each of the new motions. It may well be that the assembly ultimately chooses to postpone indefinitely one, both, or neither of the motions. Division of a Question implies the assembly wishes to consider the two parts of the question separately. It does not necessarily imply the assembly's views on the ultimate disposition of either part of the question. It makes sense. In addition I tried to read behind the lines. RONR 14:4 "If a main motion is referred to a committee while Postpone Indefinitely is pending, the latter motion is ignored and does not go to the committee, since the adoption of the motion to Commit indicates that the assembly is not in favor of postponing indefinitely." Why is it not in favor of postponing indefinitely? If it is just because the assembly wants that (RONR 13:1) “the question may be carefully investigated and put into better conditions for the assembly to consider.", A motion to Amend can perfect the main motion as well, but why does not the adoption of the motion to Amend indicates that assembly is not in favor of postponing indefinitely? Similarly a motion for Division of a Question can have the similar modifying effect on the main motion. Is there any criteria of "in favor" or "not in favor" ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 7, 2024 at 02:27 AM Report Share Posted February 7, 2024 at 02:27 AM You're raising a really excellent question. Thank you for asking. It is a rule of thumb that any motion that has the effect of permanently disposing of a main motion is debatable and amendable. This has to do with the fundamental nature of a deliberative assembly. Any exception to this rule of thumb (such as Objection to the Consideration of a Question or Previous Question) requires a two-thirds vote. This rule of thumb explains why Postpone Indefinitely is so low-ranking in the order of precedence. Since the very purpose of Postpone Indefinitely is to kill a main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session, it is right that the assembly should have the opportunity to perfect the main motion before having to vote on whether to kill and suppress it. On the other hand, the motion, Commit, has as its purpose "that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider". This conflicts with the purpose of Postpone Indefinitely, so the adoption of Commit necessarily means that the assembly does not wish to kill and suppress the main motion. That is why Postpone Indefinitely is dropped. The assembly expects the committee to report the main motion back for further consideration (with or without recommendations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baofeng Ma Posted February 8, 2024 at 03:02 PM Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2024 at 03:02 PM On 2/6/2024 at 9:27 PM, Rob Elsman said: You're raising a really excellent question. Thank you for asking. It is a rule of thumb that any motion that has the effect of permanently disposing of a main motion is debatable and amendable. This has to do with the fundamental nature of a deliberative assembly. Any exception to this rule of thumb (such as Objection to the Consideration of a Question or Previous Question) requires a two-thirds vote. This rule of thumb explains why Postpone Indefinitely is so low-ranking in the order of precedence. Since the very purpose of Postpone Indefinitely is to kill a main motion and suppress it for the remainder of the session, it is right that the assembly should have the opportunity to perfect the main motion before having to vote on whether to kill and suppress it. On the other hand, the motion, Commit, has as its purpose "that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider". This conflicts with the purpose of Postpone Indefinitely, so the adoption of Commit necessarily means that the assembly does not wish to kill and suppress the main motion. That is why Postpone Indefinitely is dropped. The assembly expects the committee to report the main motion back for further consideration (with or without recommendations). Thank you for the great interpretation. Enjoy reading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts