Privileged Motion to Adjourn With Unexhausted Order to Close Debate on a Pending Main Motion at a Certain Hour

[Rob Elsman]

Suppose that, at seven o'clock p.m., a subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is applied to an immediately pending main motion: "I move that at nine o'clock p.m. debate on the main motion be closed."  See RONR (12th ed.) 15:19(b) for a similar form.  Suppose the motion is adopted by a two-thirds vote shortly after seven o'clock, having the effect of suspending the rules.  Now, suppose that, at eight o'clock, a privileged  motion, Adjourn, is made while the order limiting debate is unexhausted: "I move to adjourn."

• Is the motion, Adjourn, in order at eight o'clock while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, or must the assembly first reject the subsidiary motion upon reconsideration?
• If the motion, Adjourn, is in order while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, does the privileged motion require a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it presumably conflicts with the previously adopted order having the effect of suspending the rules and closing debate at an hour not yet reached?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Suppose that, at seven o'clock p.m., a subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is applied to an immediately pending main motion: "I move that at nine o'clock p.m. debate on the main motion be closed."  See RONR (12th ed.) 15:19(b) for a similar form. 

I'm with you so far.

On 3/6/2024 at 3:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Suppose the motion is adopted by a two-thirds vote shortly after seven o'clock, having the effect of suspending the rules. 

Now you've lost me. You just said that the subsidiary motion to limit debate was adopted. There is no actual suspension of the rules involved.

On 3/6/2024 at 3:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Now, suppose that, at eight o'clock, a privileged  motion, Adjourn, is made while the order limiting debate is unexhausted: "I move to adjourn."

• Is the motion, Adjourn, in order at eight o'clock while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, or must the assembly first reject the subsidiary motion upon reconsideration?

There is no order suspending the rules and closing debate; there is only an order closing debate under the rules for that motion. 

I can think of no rule in RONR that precludes a motion to adjourn in this scenario. 

On 3/6/2024 at 3:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

If the motion, Adjourn, is in order while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, does the privileged motion require a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it presumably conflicts with the previously adopted order having the effect of suspending the rules and closing debate at an hour not yet reached?

No. The motion to adjourn does not conflict with the motion limiting debate. Neither would a motion to postpone indefinitely, for the previous question, to lay on the table, or to take a recess. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:17 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

No. The motion to adjourn does not conflict with the motion limiting debate. Neither would a motion to postpone indefinitely, for the previous question, to lay on the table, or to take a recess. 

Well, actually a motion for the previous question might conflict with the motion to limit debate, but nonetheless it is in order (and requires a 2/3 vote).

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:17 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

There is no actual suspension of the rules involved.

My understanding of RONR (12th ed.) 15:5, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, is quite the opposite.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:24 AM, Rob Elsman said:

My understanding of RONR (12th ed.) 15:5, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, is quite the opposite.

A motion to limit debate has the effect of suspending the regular rules relating to debate insofar as the adopted limits are incompatible with such regular rules, but it certainly does not suspend the rules relating to itself and to all the other rules in the book. Therefore I do not think it is helpful to generally think of adopting a subsidiary motion to limit debate as adopting a motion to suspend the rules. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

...having the effect of suspending the rules.

I do not believe that I said I was thinking of the adoption of a subsidiary motion to limit debate as a motion to suspend the rules--merely having "...the effect of suspending the rules", which is exactly what Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7 is saying.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Suppose that, at seven o'clock p.m., a subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, is applied to an immediately pending main motion: "I move that at nine o'clock p.m. debate on the main motion be closed."  See RONR (12th ed.) 15:19(b) for a similar form.  Suppose the motion is adopted by a two-thirds vote shortly after seven o'clock, having the effect of suspending the rules.  Now, suppose that, at eight o'clock, a privileged  motion, Adjourn, is made while the order limiting debate is unexhausted: "I move to adjourn."

• Is the motion, Adjourn, in order at eight o'clock while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, or must the assembly first reject the subsidiary motion upon reconsideration?
• If the motion, Adjourn, is in order while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, does the privileged motion require a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it presumably conflicts with the previously adopted order having the effect of suspending the rules and closing debate at an hour not yet reached?

I think the motion to adjourn is in order and that a majority vote will be sufficient to adopt it.

The adoption of a motion such as the one described in 15:19(b) does not mandate that debate continue until the time prescribed for closing debate.  It simply orders that debate shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, Mr. Honemann.  I agree completely with you.

What I am probing is the precise meaning in parliamentary law of the words, "...at [...] o'clock" or very similar words.  If "...at nine o'clock p.m." in this instance means, "...does not mandate that debate continue until the time prescribed for closing debate.  It simply orders that debate shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time.", then why in another instance (discussed in this topic: Topic 43344) does the meaning of "adjourn at [...] o'clock" in an agenda pose the same question as, "I move to adjourn" made before the hour fixed in the agenda has arrived?  Why does "adjourn at [...] o'clock" not mean "...does not mandate that [the meeting] continue until the time prescribed for [adjournment].  It simply orders that [the meeting] shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time"?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2024 at 2:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

• Is the motion, Adjourn, in order at eight o'clock while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect...

Yes.

The motion to adjourn has higher rank than Limit Debate, and therefore, Limit Debate does not (and cannot) impact the making of a privileged motion to adjourn.

As a technical matter, an order limiting debate is also not an order "suspending the rules."

On 3/6/2024 at 2:00 AM, Rob Elsman said:

If the motion, Adjourn, is in order while the order suspending the rules and closing debate at nine o'clock is still in effect, does the privileged motion require a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it presumably conflicts with the previously adopted order having the effect of suspending the rules and closing debate at an hour not yet reached?

No. See above.

On 3/6/2024 at 11:35 AM, Rob Elsman said:

What I am probing is the precise meaning in parliamentary law of the words, "...at [...] o'clock" or very similar words.  If "...at nine o'clock p.m." in this instance means, "...does not mandate that debate continue until the time prescribed for closing debate.  It simply orders that debate shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time.", then why in another instance (discussed in this topic: Topic 43344) does the meaning of "adjourn at [...] o'clock" in an agenda pose the same question as, "I move to adjourn" made before the hour fixed in the agenda has arrived?  Why does "adjourn at [...] o'clock" not mean "...does not mandate that [the meeting] continue until the time prescribed for [adjournment].  It simply orders that [the meeting] shall not be allowed to continue beyond that time"?

I think this is comparing apples and oranges.

Edited March 6, 2024 at 06:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

If I am comparing apples and oranges, why is the same language, "...at [...] o'clock", used with different meanings in the book?  Doesn't such an ambiguity create confusion?  It certainly has with me.