Incidental main motion

[J. J.]

10:4 provides two characteristic for an incidental main motion (IMM):

A.  It be an action specifically defined under parliamentary law.

B.  It "does not mark the beginning of a particular involvement of the assembly in a substantive matter."

To be an IMM, must it have both characteristics?

For example, would a motion "to commend the Fundraising Committee [a special committee appointed by the assembly] for the work it has been doing over the last three months," be an IMM.  The assembly has been involved with the Fundraising Committee before, but a motion "to commend" is not specifically defined under parliamentary law.

[Rob Elsman]

"[C]haracteristics" is plural, and I would assume the ordinary rules of English syntax apply.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/7/2024 at 4:20 PM, J. J. said:

To be an IMM, must it have both characteristics?

Yes. 

RONR clearly identifies situations where any one of a list of requirements is sufficient.  It does not do so here. IMMs have two characteristics.

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/7/2024 at 4:20 PM, J. J. said:

For example, would a motion "to commend the Fundraising Committee [a special committee appointed by the assembly] for the work it has been doing over the last three months," be an IMM.  The assembly has been involved with the Fundraising Committee before, but a motion "to commend" is not specifically defined under parliamentary law and are not parliamentary terms

A motion to commend, like a motion to censure, is not an incidental main motion.  These words are not parliamentary terms, and these actions, "commend" and "censure", are not actions specifically defined under parliamentary law.  On the other hand, a motion to ratify is, of course, an incidental main motion.  "Ratify" is a parliamentary term, and ratification is an action specifically defined under parliamentary law. 

[J. J.]

On 6/9/2024 at 9:00 AM, Dan Honemann said:

A motion to commend, like a motion to censure, is not an incidental main motion.  These words are not parliamentary terms, and these actions, "commend" and "censure", are not actions specifically defined under parliamentary law.  On the other hand, a motion to ratify is, of course, an incidental main motion.  "Ratify" is a parliamentary term, and ratification is an action specifically defined under parliamentary law. 

I am not disagreeing, however, the answer raises another question.

The committee, without authorization, took some action.  A motion is made to ratify the action (which would be an IMM), i.e. "That the action of the Fundraising Committee in regard to X be ratified."  While it is pending the motion is amended by substituting the "That the Fundraising Committee be censured for its actions in regard to X."  Did that change the motion to ratify into an original main motion?  [It probably would not make a difference.]

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/9/2024 at 11:50 AM, J. J. said:

I am not disagreeing, however, the answer raises another question.

The committee, without authorization, took some action.  A motion is made to ratify the action (which would be an IMM), i.e. "That the action of the Fundraising Committee in regard to X be ratified."  While it is pending the motion is amended by substituting the "That the Fundraising Committee be censured for its actions in regard to X."  Did that change the motion to ratify into an original main motion?  [It probably would not make a difference.]

Yes, I think it did, but no objection to its consideration would be in order. 

[J. J.]

On 6/9/2024 at 1:19 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, I think it did, but no objection to its consideration would be in order. 

It looks like 12:22 5) then would not apply, as the amendment would not convert one parliamentary motion into another, but it would change the (sub)class somewhat. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/9/2024 at 1:27 PM, J. J. said:

It looks like 12:22 5) then would not apply, as the amendment would not convert one parliamentary motion into another, but it would change the (sub)class somewhat. 

Yes, 12:22(5) is inapplicable.  Adoption of the motion to substitute converted the pending main motion from an incidental main motion into an original main motion, albeit one which is not subject to an objection to its consideration.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/9/2024 at 2:12 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, 12:22(5) is inapplicable.  Adoption of the motion to substitute converted the pending main motion from an incidental main motion into an original main motion, albeit one which is not subject to an objection to its consideration.

Since consideration of the motion to Ratify was thoroughly underway, to the point of having agreed to at least one a motion to Amend, it would be too late to object to consideration anyway, I'd think.

[J. J.]

On 6/9/2024 at 8:04 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Since consideration of the motion to Ratify was thoroughly underway, to the point of having agreed to at least one a motion to Amend, it would be too late to object to consideration anyway, I'd think.

It would be, which is why I said, "It probably would not make a difference."

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/9/2024 at 8:04 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Since consideration of the motion to Ratify was thoroughly underway, to the point of having agreed to at least one a motion to Amend, it would be too late to object to consideration anyway, I'd think.

This is slightly misleading, or at best superfluous, since the motion to ratify was never subject to an objection to its consideration, nor was the motion to amend it.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/10/2024 at 7:35 AM, Dan Honemann said:

This is slightly misleading, or at best superfluous, since the motion to ratify was never subject to an objection to its consideration, nor was the motion to amend it.

I don't seem to understand.   A motion is made and seconded to Ratify something.  At that point it would be subject to objection to consideration but that is not moved.  Instead, an amendment is agreed to, striking ratify and inserting censure.  So the pending question has been amended and therefore it is now too late to object to its consideration.  

In other news, it has now become an original main motion, which is of some academic interest, but it is still the pending question, and so is still not subject to objection.

That's my understanding.  What am I missing?

[Dan Honemann]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:03 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't seem to understand.   A motion is made and seconded to Ratify something.  At that point it would be subject to objection to consideration but that is not moved.  Instead, an amendment is agreed to, striking ratify and inserting censure.  So the pending question has been amended and therefore it is now too late to object to its consideration.  

In other news, it has now become an original main motion, which is of some academic interest, but it is still the pending question, and so is still not subject to objection.

That's my understanding.  What am I missing?

A motion to ratify is an incidental main motion and, as such, is not subject to an objection to its consideration. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/11/2024 at 7:43 AM, Dan Honemann said:

A motion to ratify is an incidental main motion and, as such, is not subject to an objection to its consideration. 

Right, sorry, brain glitch.  But in this scenario it was not attempted anyway.

My point was that even though it becomes an original main motion, it does not become subject to objection to consideration because consideration has already begun, not because it belongs to some special category of original main motions.  

But since nothing you said conflicts with that, I'll just withdraw my inquiry and be glad I understand it better now.