Expiration of a Term

[pwilson]

If the term of all or a specified portion of the membership expires between two regular sessions (even when separated by no more than a quarterly time interval), then business cannot be carried over to the later session except by referral to a committee ([12^th ed.] 9:8–9, 21:7(c), 34:3n, 37:11(c)), nor are minutes approved at the later session (48:12). In the passages referenced, the expiration of a term is treated the same way as the elapsing of a quarterly time interval.

Yet other passages involving business being carried over to a later session mention only a quarterly time interval, implying that the expiration of a term would not affect such business (6:26(1), 14:6, 17:8, 17:16, 37:11(d), 37:15, 37:47(5), 41:15, 41:21, 41:40). Nor would the expiration of a term appear to affect giving notice at an earlier session (10:44), renewing a motion at a later session (38:8), or automatically taking up an incomplete election at a later session (46:44).

What am I missing about the effect of the expiration of a term?

[Rob Elsman]

It is hard to guess what, if anything, you are missing.

What I can tell you is that I have repeatedly opined on this forum that a motion, Commit, is not in order if the sole purpose for the making of it is to circumvent the rules regarding the effects of some cases of adjournment.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/8/2024 at 1:22 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It is hard to guess what, if anything, you are missing.

What I can tell you is that I have repeatedly opined on this forum that a motion, Commit, is not in order if the sole purpose for the making of it is to circumvent the rules regarding the effects of some cases of adjournment.

And what do you find in RONR in support of this opinion?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/8/2024 at 1:22 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It is hard to guess what, if anything, you are missing.

What I can tell you is that I have repeatedly opined on this forum that a motion, Commit, is not in order if the sole purpose for the making of it is to circumvent the rules regarding the effects of some cases of adjournment.

And what if the purpose of Committing a question arose from a majority belief that the interests of the society were best served by keeping this particular question alive even past such an adjournment. 

Note that the sole purpose of moving it is to circumvent the rule.

[Rob Elsman]

RONR (12th ed.) 13:1 gives the proper purpose for the motion, Commit.  RONR (12th ed.) §38 discusses the proper renewal of main motions that have previously fallen to the ground on account of an adjournment.

 

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/8/2024 at 2:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

...that the interests of the society were best served by keeping this particular question alive even past such an adjournment. 

Note that the sole purpose of moving it is to circumvent the rule.

Nothing prevents the society from adopting a special rule of order to expand what is said in 13:1.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/8/2024 at 4:39 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Nothing prevents the society from adopting a special rule of order to expand what is said in 13:1.

13:1 simply tells us what the motion is generally used for.  That's a far cry from saying that it is the only thing it should be used for.

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/8/2024 at 2:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

...that the interests of the society were best served by keeping this particular question alive even past such an adjournment. 

Note that the sole purpose of moving it is to circumvent the rule.

Nothing prevents the society from adopting a special rule of order to expand what is said in 13:1.

[Rob Elsman]

It would be a sorry day for parliamentary law were one rule properly used to circumvent another rule.

[J. J.]

On 5/8/2024 at 5:05 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It would be a sorry day for parliamentary law were one rule properly used to circumvent another rule.

That is called "parliamentary procedure." 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/8/2024 at 4:05 PM, Rob Elsman said:

It would be a sorry day for parliamentary law were one rule properly used to circumvent another rule.

Not so sure about that. The motion to Suspend the Rules, for example, is always "used to circumvent another rule." Yet it is clearly allowed.

On 5/8/2024 at 3:52 PM, Dan Honemann said:

13:1 simply tells us what the motion is generally used for.  That's a far cry from saying that it is the only thing it should be used for.

I think Mr. Honemann (unsurprisingly) has the correct reading of the rule. Note his emphasis on the word "generally.""

[Rob Elsman]

I strongly disagree.  The proper way to proceed is to let the main motion fall to the ground.  If and when it seems prudent to do so, it can be renewed at any later session.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/8/2024 at 6:07 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I strongly disagree. 

You've made that quite apparent. But it seems that most of us disagree with your disagreement. That doesn't necessarily mean that we're right and you're wrong, but it should give you pause.

On 5/8/2024 at 6:07 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The proper way to proceed is to let the main motion fall to the ground.  If and when it seems prudent to do so, it can be renewed at any later session.

That's certainly one way to do it, and it may be a better course of action in some instances. But that does not mean it is the only way to proceed. If that were the intent of 13:1, it would have been easy enough for the authors to omit the word "generally,"  and explicitly say that any other useis out of order.

[Rob Elsman]

Perhaps I can help my line of argumentation move along if I say it this way:  A motion, Commit, is misused when the intent is to effect a postponement to a time too far.  See RONR Off. Interp. 2006-8.

[pwilson]

I'd be grateful for any insight into the original question, as well as the apparent tension between the passages referenced in the first paragraph and those referenced in the second paragraph of the original post.

[Rob Elsman]

On 5/8/2024 at 9:24 AM, pwilson said:

What am I missing about the effect of the expiration of a term?

First of all, I apologize to you for my part in leaving the original question hanging while the "old-timers" on this forum go off on a tangent that arises.  This often happens on this forum.

I think the problem with the original question is that the form of the question makes it impossible for the responders to know what you've got, so we don't know what you're missing.  If you can reframe your question some other way, I will make an extra-special effort to give some well-deserved attention (as, I'm sure, so will the other "old-timers").  Are you experiencing some particular problem at a meeting?  Is there a particular parliamentary situation that seems baffling?

[Rob Elsman]

As to the "tangent" (forgive me, @pwilson), I have often said on this forum that you can put striped pajamas on a horse, but the result is not a zebra.  The misuse of Commit for the sole purpose of circumventing the rules concerning the permanent disposition of main motions in certain cases of adjournment is a case where Postpone to a Certain Time--to a time too far--has been dressed up with the striped pajamas of Commit, but the result is not Commit.  For all its striped finery, the misuse of Commit, in this case, is still just a parliamentary shenanigan to postpone to a time too far without having to say so.

[pwilson]

Perhaps I can rephrase using this shorthand: 

        (a) A quarterly time interval having elapsed

        (b) The term of all or a specified portion of the membership having expired

Do (a) and (b) always have the same effect on whether business can be carried over, etc.?

The passages referenced in the first paragraph of my original post seem to indicate yes, whereas those referenced in the second paragraph seem to indicate no.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/9/2024 at 8:25 AM, Rob Elsman said:

As to the "tangent" .... For all its striped finery, the misuse of Commit, in this case, is still just a parliamentary shenanigan to postpone to a time too far without having to say so.

We probably have pretty much exhausted what there is to say about this issue, but I want to add one more thought. Even if using Commit solely to get around the time limitation of Postpone Definitely is importer (and I still don't think it is), it would be easy enough for the mover to add instructions for the committee to take some action on the motion (such as to study the issue ands recommendations), and this accomplish the purpose. Of course, the danger of this is that the committee may recommend something that the mover does not like. In addition, I believe Suspend the Rules could be used to allow the motion. although that woud require a 2/3 vote.

[Rob Elsman]

Outside committees, the answer is "yes".  See RONR (12th ed.) 21:7(c).  In committees, however, motions do carry over.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:11 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Outside committees, the answer is "yes".  See RONR (12th ed.) 21:7(c).  In committees, however, motions do carry over.

I agree with Mr. Elman on this issue.

[Rob Elsman]

I do not believe the rules can be suspended to admit Commit when the sole purpose of the motion is to circumvent the rules concerning the permanent disposition of main motions in certain cases of adjournment.  This horse in striped pajamas violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as explained in RONR (Off. Interp.) 2006-8.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 5/9/2024 at 10:18 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not believe the rules can be suspended to admit Commit when the sole purpose of the motion is to circumvent the rules concerning the permanent disposition of main motions in certain cases of adjournment.  This horse in striped pajamas violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as explained in RONR (Off. Interp.) 2006-8.

Using that interpretation to support your argument presupposes that using Commit to carry a motion over to a meeting where Postpone could not be used is equivalent to a motion to Postpone. I still do not agree that it is. And even if it were, as I previously pointed out, the rule could very easily be circumvent by instructing the committee to study the matter and reports its recommendations.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree that a change in the premises can result in a radically different solution. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:18 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not believe the rules can be suspended to admit Commit when the sole purpose of the motion is to circumvent the rules concerning the permanent disposition of main motions in certain cases of adjournment. 

There is no need to suspend the rules.