Suspension of the President for a session

[J. J.]

The society has a several day session. 

1.  At some point, a member moves "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair."  There will be several different items of business to be considered, including motion #37.  Is that motion, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

2.  That motion fails, but when motion #37 is about to be introduce, a member moves "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"  Is that, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

 

Edited April 11, 2024 at 04:09 PM by J. J.

[Josh Martin]

On 4/11/2024 at 11:06 AM, J. J. said:

1.  At some point, a member moves "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair."  There will be several different items of business to be considered, including motion #37.  Is that motion, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

I think it ultimately depends on the facts of the particular situation. But based solely on the facts presented, I would lean toward it being an incidental main motion.

"As a class, incidental motions deal with questions of procedure arising out of: (1) commonly, another pending motion; but also (2) sometimes, another motion or item of business

a) that it is desired to introduce,
b) that has been made but has not yet been stated by the chair, or
c) that has just been pending.

An incidental motion is said to be incidental to the other motion or matter out of which it arises. With but few exceptions, incidental motions are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed. Most incidental motions are undebatable." RONR (12th ed.) 6:15-16

The facts as presented here, in and of themselves, do not appear to meet any of the criteria in 6:15-16, and the motion does not appear to arise out of any other motion or matter.

On 4/11/2024 at 11:06 AM, J. J. said:

2.  That motion fails, but when motion #37 is about to be introduce, a member moves "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"  Is that, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

Now this, on the other hand, I think is certainly an incidental motion, as it relates to a motion "that it is desired to introduce," and the motion to suspend the rules arises out of Motion #37.

[J. J.]

Assume that the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair"  is defeated. 

May the motion be reconsidered?

When motion #37 is about to be introduce, is it in order for a member to move "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/11/2024 at 9:33 PM, J. J. said:

Assume that the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair"  is defeated. 

May the motion be reconsidered?

An incidental motion to Suspend the Rules may not be reconsidered. However, it may be renewed if circumstances are such that it has become a substantially new question (for example, due to progress in the meeting).

If this was made as an incidental main motion, then I also think it is still the case that this motion can be renewed if circumstances are such that it has become a substantially new question (for example, due to progress in the meeting), and a motion which can be renewed cannot be reconsidered. Prior to that time, however, I am generally inclined to think it can be reconsidered. I cannot think of any reason it could not be.

On 4/11/2024 at 9:33 PM, J. J. said:

When motion #37 is about to be introduce, is it in order for a member to move "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #37?"

Yes.

[J. J.]

The only difference that I would have is on renewal; I would not see that as generally being a new question.  I could see how an incidental main motion could be made "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motions #36 through #40."

That said, I would agree that an incidental motion "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of motion #_____," could be made just prior to each motion being introduced. 

[Atul Kapur]

I don't see how a motion to suspend the rules on more than one motion, such as motions #36-#40 or for the remainder of the session (Question 1 in the OP), is the same question as a motion to suspend the rules on one particular motion, such as motion #37.

[J. J.]

On 4/12/2024 at 5:29 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I don't see how a motion to suspend the rules on more than one motion, such as motions #36-#40 or for the remainder of the session (Question 1 in the OP), is the same question as a motion to suspend the rules on one particular motion, such as motion #37.

I think that making the same or a similar incidental main motion after each main motion is considered may be dilatory. 

Edited April 12, 2024 at 10:54 PM by J. J.

[Atul Kapur]

1) That's not the question asked in the OP, which was for one particular motion rather than every subsequent motion individually. 

2) I believe it was you, @J. J., who previously said in an unrelated thread that whether a motion is dilatory depends on the result; if the assembly adopts the motion each time, then they apparently don't find it dilatory.

[NB: See two posts below where J.J. corrects me on what he actually said previously.]

Edited April 13, 2024 at 04:49 PM by Atul Kapur
Added bracketed sentence

[J. J.]

On 4/12/2024 at 7:36 PM, Atul Kapur said:

1) That's not the question asked in the OP, which was for one particular motion rather than every subsequent motion individually. 

2) I believe it was you, @J. J., who previously said in an unrelated thread that whether a motion is dilatory depends on the result; if the assembly adopts the motion each time, then they apparently don't find it dilatory.

No, I said that "dilatory" is ultimately the judgement of the majority, not the result. 

That is covered in 38:5 1. 

[J. J.]

On 4/12/2024 at 7:36 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

2) I believe it was you, @J. J., who previously said in an unrelated thread that whether a motion is dilatory depends on the result; if the assembly adopts the motion each time, then they apparently don't find it dilatory.

Just for the record, I have said "No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." 

This is not a question of if the assembly finds the question dilatory, but if the chair should rule that way.  Those are two quite different standards. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/12/2024 at 7:57 PM, J. J. said:

No, I said that "dilatory" is ultimately the judgement of the majority, not the result. 

On 4/13/2024 at 7:33 AM, J. J. said:

Just for the record, I have said "No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is)." 

Thank you for the correction of my paraphrasing; I have edited my post to point to your corrections.

 

The point stands that the individual motions should not initially be ruled dilatory.

 

[J. J.]

On 4/13/2024 at 12:59 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

The point stands that the individual motions should not initially be ruled dilatory.

 

Which "individual motions?"  I think the incidental motion to suspend the rules would not be dilatory, if make in regard to a main motion that is about to  be introduced, even if it were made before each main motion was introduced.  Further, the initial incidental main motion (IMM), "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," would be in order.  If it was made, and defeated, prior to the first item of business being introduced, I think it could be reconsidered.  Once that first item of business is disposed of, I would question the renewal of the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," could be renewed in that form.  At some point later, I could see a situation where renewal might be possible. 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/12/2024 at 5:52 PM, J. J. said:

I think that making the same or a similar incidental main motion after each main motion is considered may be dilatory. 

Yes, no doubt if a member makes this motion (or something like it) after each main motion, that's quite likely dilatory.

But that's why I vaguely said "this motion can be renewed if circumstances are such that it has become a substantially new question (for example, due to progress in the meeting)," without specifying exactly what circumstances or how much progress. It's ultimately going to be a judgment call by the chair.

If a members makes this motion after each main motion, that's one thing. On the other hand, if a member makes this motion at one point in the meeting and makes this same motion one more time hours later, after the assembly has completed a great deal of business, that's very different.

On 4/13/2024 at 1:22 PM, J. J. said:

Once that first item of business is disposed of, I would question the renewal of the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," could be renewed in that form.  At some point later, I could see a situation where renewal might be possible. 

I think we're all ultimately on the same page here.

[J. J.]

I think we are on the same page.

I would not feel that the incidental motion "to suspend the rules and permit the vice president serve as chair during the consideration of the next motion on the order of business" would be dilatory, however.  It could be made before (or with different wording after) the introduction of the next item of business, because it is a new question. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/11/2024 at 12:06 PM, J. J. said:

The society has a several day session. 

1.  At some point, a member moves "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair."  There will be several different items of business to be considered, including motion #37.  Is that motion, in all cases, an incidental or an incidental main motion? 

I apologize for coming late to this party, but it seems to me that 62:12 says that this is an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

[J. J.]

On 4/14/2024 at 10:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I apologize for coming late to this party, but it seems to me that 62:12 says that this is an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

It does say that. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 4/13/2024 at 2:22 PM, J. J. said:

Once that first item of business is disposed of, I would question the renewal of the motion "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session and permit the vice president to serve as chair," could be renewed in that form.

I have no quarrel with this statement, which is different from what was being discussed earlier in this thread.

[J. J.]

On 4/14/2024 at 1:25 PM, Atul Kapur said:

I have no quarrel with this statement, which is different from what was being discussed earlier in this thread.

I don't know what you were discussing then. 

[Richard Brown]

On 4/14/2024 at 9:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I apologize for coming late to this party, but it seems to me that 62:12 says that this is an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules.

I have always been of the opinion that 62:12 to remove the chair from presiding is an undebatable motion to suspend the rules.  However, I recently heard at least one well-known and well-respected parliamentarian opine in a workshop that 62:12 is actually an incidental main motion if made when no other business is pending and is not related to the chair's handling of a particular motion and that by virtue of being an incidental main motion, it is debatable. 

Would you please give us your opinion on that point?  Is 62:12 always an undebatable incidental motion to suspend the rules or is it debatable in some cases?

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/24/2024 at 4:49 AM, Richard Brown said:

I have always been of the opinion that 62:12 to remove the chair from presiding is an undebatable motion to suspend the rules.  However, I recently heard at least one well-known and well-respected parliamentarian opine in a workshop that 62:12 is actually an incidental main motion if made when no other business is pending and is not related to the chair's handling of a particular motion and that by virtue of being an incidental main motion, it is debatable. 

Would you please give us your opinion on that point?  Is 62:12 always an undebatable incidental motion to suspend the rules or is it debatable in some cases?

Here is what RONR says in 62:12:

"62:12    If the chair is not an appointed or elected chairman pro tem, a motion to declare the chair vacant is not in order. However, a motion can be made to Suspend the Rules so as to take away from him the authority to preside during all or part of a given session."  Note that Suspend the Rules is italicized.

This is expressly and unequivocally telling you that this sort of motion is the parliamentary motion (see 4:64-65) called Suspend the Rules, which motion is fully discussed in 25:1-20.  This incidental motion can be made when no question is pending (see 25:2).

For an instance in which an incidental main motion to suspend the rules is referred to see the footnote on page 102.  

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/24/2024 at 4:49 AM, Richard Brown said:

However, I recently heard at least one well-known and well-respected parliamentarian opine in a workshop that 62:12 is actually an incidental main motion if made when no other business is pending and is not related to the chair's handling of a particular motion and that by virtue of being an incidental main motion, it is debatable. 

I hope you won't mind my asking this question, which I probably should have asked before responding.  Is this "well-known and well-respected parliamentarian" one of my three colleagues on the authorship team?  If so, I should have given him the courtesy of consulting with him prior to responding as I did.

[Atul Kapur]

@Dan Honemann, how does 6:23 work with this? I read 6:23 to say that, if moved when no business is pending, the motion to remive the chair for all or some of the remainder of the session is an incidental main motion. I gather your response is that it is an incidental motion, but I am not certain why 6:23 wouldn't apply here.

[Richard Brown]

On 5/24/2024 at 2:19 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I hope you won't mind my asking this question, which I probably should have asked before responding.  Is this "well-known and well-respected parliamentarian" one of my three colleagues on the authorship team?  If so, I should have given him the courtesy of consulting with him prior to responding as I did.

No, it’s not anyone from the authorship team. You’re safe! I apologize from my late response, but I have been tied up at this convention and just now saw your follow up question to me. There are actually at least five of us who post on the forum here, one as convention parliamentarian, two as floor parliamentarians, one as an officer of the society, and one as a member. You can probably guess which organization this is!

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/24/2024 at 6:41 PM, Atul Kapur said:

@Dan Honemann, how does 6:23 work with this? I read 6:23 to say that, if moved when no business is pending, the motion to remive the chair for all or some of the remainder of the session is an incidental main motion. I gather your response is that it is an incidental motion, but I am not certain why 6:23 wouldn't apply here.

6:23 is simply a general statement advising you that counterparts of some of the incidental motions may occur as incidental main motions, and provides two examples.  This makes no reference to, and has nothing whatsoever to do with, the specific factual situation and motion described in 62:12.