Hypothetical: Postponement Beyond Quarterly Time Interval.

[TheGrandRascal]

O.K., hypothetical situation! (What fun!)

An organization only holds monthly meetings for nine months of the year -- let's say, from January through September. They do not meet in October, November, or December.

According to RONR, it is out of order to Postpone a main motion at the September meeting to the January meeting; that's beyond the quarterly time interval. However, the motion can go over by way of a committee report.

1. Is it, therefore, in order at the September meeting, for some member to move, for example, "that the main motion be committed to the Secretary, as a committee of one, with instruction to report it at the January meeting"? Take notice that there is NO authorization to formulate any amendments, or even to give any recommendation, but merely to "report it" (i.e., place it before the assembly for action).

2. The sole and actual purpose of this motion is to get around the rule blocking use of the motion to Postpone. Is a dodge like this even LEGAL, since it clearly vitiates the spirit and intention of the rule?

3. Assuming the answer to that last question is "No, it is not legal," and since the obvious purpose of this motion us simply to bypass the "can't-Postpone-it" rule, can the chair rule the motion out of order, perhaps on the grounds that "it is dilatory, as it is not a genuine motion to Commit, but is only a motion to Postpone, masquerading as a motion to Commit?"

4. Would it make a difference if the Secretary was authorized to propose admendments and/or to make a recommendation with regard to the main motion?

5. And lastly, if the organization really desires the convenience of being able to Postpone a main motion from its September meeting to it January meeting on a regular basis (howsoever inadvisably), what sort of Special Rule of Order should it adopt?

Thanks for your consideration.

Edited July 20, 2024 at 07:17 AM by TheGrandRascal
Corrected typo.

[Dan Honemann]

What you are saying is that the assembly just wants to get rid of the pending main motion without adopting or rejecting it, and I'm sure you know that the motion to be used for this purpose is Postpone Indefinitely.  If the assembly wishes to consider it at the next meeting, it can easily do so.

 

[Josh Martin]

On 7/20/2024 at 2:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

According to RONR, it is out of order to Postpone a main motion at the September meeting to the January meeting; that's beyond the quarterly time interval. However, the motion can go over by way of a committee report.

Yes, this is all correct.

There are better workarounds, in my opinion.

On 7/20/2024 at 2:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

1. Is it, therefore, in order at the September meeting, for some member to move, for example, "that the main motion be committed to the Secretary, as a committee of one, with instruction to report it at the January meeting"? Take notice that there is NO authorization to formulate any amendments, or even to give any recommendation, but merely to "report it" (i.e., place it before the assembly for action).

2. The sole and actual purpose of this motion is to get around the rule blocking use of the motion to Postpone. Is a dodge like this even LEGAL, since it clearly vitiates the spirit and intention of the rule?

3. Assuming the answer to that last question is "No, it is not legal," and since the obvious purpose of this motion us simply to bypass the "can't-Postpone-it" rule, can the chair rule the motion out of order, perhaps on the grounds that "it is dilatory, as it is not a genuine motion to Commit, but is only a motion to Postpone, masquerading as a motion to Commit?"

This is one of Mr. Elsman's pet peeves, so I imagine you will be hearing from his on this matter shortly. I know he takes the position that this motion is out of order. I take the position that it is in order, albeit silly.

I will answer the first three questions together, because it's basically the same question asked three times, in only minutely different ways.

1.) In my personal opinion, this motion is in order, but I would personally be opposed to it. A motion should not be referred to a committee unless that's what the assembly actually wants to do.

I would also note that, while the motion does not instruct the Secretary from making recommendations on this matter, I also don't see anything in the motion prohibiting the Secretary from doing so, so the joke might be on the motion maker, and the Secretary may well report his recommendations on this matter at the next meeting.

It's also needlessly complicated. There are easier ways to accomplish the member's objective.

2.) See answer to #1.

3.) No, the chair may not rule the motion out of order on these grounds. Further, I certainly do not see anything to suggest the motion is dilatory.

"A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation." RONR (12th ed.) 39:1

As I understand the facts, the member is not seeking to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly. Rather, he is seeking to facilitate the will of the assembly, just rather poorly.

On 7/20/2024 at 2:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

4. Would it make a difference if the Secretary was authorized to propose admendments and/or to make a recommendation with regard to the main motion?

Well, I actually think the motion as written already authorizes the Secretary to propose amendments and/or make a recommendation with regard to the main motion.

But in any event, I do not think this makes a difference as to whether the motion is in order.

I think this does make a difference - and is, in fact, the key difference - in regard to whether the motion is advisable. If the assembly actually wants a committee to study this matter, then the motion to Commit is the appropriate motion. If the assembly does not want a committee to study this matter, then the motion to Commit is not the appropriate motion.

On 7/20/2024 at 2:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

5. And lastly, if the organization really desires the convenience of being able to Postpone a main motion from its September meeting to it January meeting on a regular basis (howsoever inadvisably), what sort of Special Rule of Order should it adopt?

So I would first note that there are already other workarounds to the quarterly interval rule. So it may well be no special rule of order is necessary.

The simplest of these tools is the motion to Postpone Indefinitely. While members ordinarily think of this motion as a way to get rid of a motion for which the assembly finds it politically undesirable to take a position, the intent (and effect) of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is simply to kill the main motion (without a direct vote) for the duration of the current session.

Because of this fact, another entirely proper purpose of Postpone Indefinitely is to use it to kill a motion because the assembly does not wish to act upon it at the present time. In this manner, it can be used as a workaround for the limits on postponement. The motion can be postponed indefinitely, and then it can simply be made again at the next meeting, or whenever it is desirable to take up the motion again. I have used Postpone Indefinitely for this purpose myself.

I actually quite like this usage, because while it is not the example generally think of with this motion, it actually fits the name more closely - the motion is being postponed to some indefinite time in the future.

In the alternative, another workaround is with adjourned meetings. The rule on the limitations on postponement reads as follows:

"In a case where more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7) will elapse between meetings (for example, in an annual convention of delegates or in a local society that holds only an annual meeting), a question cannot be postponed beyond the end of the present session. In cases where no more than a quarterly time interval will elapse between sessions, a question can be postponed until, but not beyond, the next regular business session. For example, in a society that holds regular business meetings on the same day of each week, a question cannot, at one meeting, be postponed for longer than a week." RONR (12th ed.) 14:6, emphasis added

So the assembly could establish an adjourned meeting as a way to "bridge" the gap between two regular meetings that are more than a quarterly interval apart. A more reasonable application of this would be, for example, to establish an adjourned meeting in October/November/December. The motion could be acted upon at that meeting, or it could be postponed again to the next regular meeting - which is now within a quarterly interval.

In the alternative (and this is a bit more on the "shenanigans" side, but technically in order), the assembly could establish an adjourned meeting in January. There is no rule against this - an adjourned meeting can be more than a quarterly interval away (the only limitation is that it must be before the next regular meeting), and because it is still part of the same session, the assembly can postpone motions to that meeting. You could even schedule an adjourned meeting to be held immediately prior to the regular meeting in January.

But supposing all this is not sufficient, and the assembly would prefer to be able to just use Postpone to a Certain Time to postpone a motion from the September meeting to the January meeting, the assembly is free adopt a special rule of order substantially similar to the following:

"A question may be postponed to the next regular business session, even if more than a quarterly time interval will elapse between sessions."

Edited July 20, 2024 at 01:35 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Honemann completely, but I would like to add my two-cents' worth in the hope that a little background will help others to identify and properly handle similar situations.

There is a rule of thumb that underlies the rules of order concerning the permanent disposition of main motions: Any motion that has, as part or all of its purpose, the effect of permanently disposing of a main motion for the remainder of the session is fully debatable as to the merits of the main motion. The corollary to this rule of thumb is that a two-thirds vote is always required to permanently dispose of such a main motion without debate on its merits; and, thus, any such action by majority vote is never in order.

There are common enough parliamentary shenanigans that are attempted by misusing various subsidiary motions to give the appearance of propriety to what are, in fact, efforts to circumvent the rules by permanently disposing of a main motion by majority vote without opening up the merits of the main motion to debate. All of these efforts, under whatever guise, are uniformly not in order.

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 7/20/2024 at 12:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

2. The sole and actual purpose of this motion is to get around the rule blocking use of the motion to Postpone. Is a dodge like this even LEGAL, since it clearly vitiates the spirit and intention of the rule?

3. Assuming the answer to that last question is "No, it is not legal," and since the obvious purpose of this motion us simply to bypass the "can't-Postpone-it" rule, can the chair rule the motion out of order, perhaps on the grounds that "it is dilatory, as it is not a genuine motion to Commit, but is only a motion to Postpone, masquerading as a motion to Commit?"

 

I have nothing to add to the thorough answers above, except a side point. You first asked if this manuever was out of order. Then you asked if it was "LEGAL." That leads me to think you mean something else by "LEGAL" than in order, so I want to note that we do not handle legal questions here. If there are laws impacting your procedures, as is common for public bodies, HOAs, unions, and certain other organization types, you'll need to consult an attorney.

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/20/2024 at 3:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

1. Is it, therefore, in order at the September meeting, for some member to move, for example, "that the main motion be committed to the Secretary, as a committee of one, with instruction to report it at the January meeting"? Take notice that there is NO authorization to formulate any amendments, or even to give any recommendation, but merely to "report it" (i.e., place it before the assembly for action).

2. The sole and actual purpose of this motion is to get around the rule blocking use of the motion to Postpone. Is a dodge like this even LEGAL, since it clearly vitiates the spirit and intention of the rule?

3. Assuming the answer to that last question is "No, it is not legal," and since the obvious purpose of this motion us simply to bypass the "can't-Postpone-it" rule, can the chair rule the motion out of order, perhaps on the grounds that "it is dilatory, as it is not a genuine motion to Commit, but is only a motion to Postpone, masquerading as a motion to Commit?"

The question which the presiding officer has to answer is whether or not it is "reasonable" to permit the use of this motion for the sole purpose of postponing a question beyond the limit imposed by the rules applicable to the motion to Postpone (RONR, 12th ed., 13:9).  I think it is not reasonable to do so, and that the answer to 3 is yes, the chair can and should rule it out of order.

[J. J.]

On 7/20/2024 at 11:12 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The question which the presiding officer has to answer is whether or not it is "reasonable" to permit the use of this motion for the sole purpose of postponing a question beyond the limit imposed by the rules applicable to the motion to Postpone (RONR, 12th ed., 13:9).  I think it is not reasonable to do so, and that the answer to 3 is yes, the chair can and should rule it out of order.

I disagree, at least on the global nature of the answer.

I can see situations where notice, perhaps even of several meetings, is required to adopt some action.  The notice was properly given for the September meeting, but for some reason, the assembly is not ready to decide the issue.  Without using a committee, the assembly may not be able to vote until the February or March meeting.  In such a case, it is reasonable to refer the matter to a committee of one. 

While more cumbersome, the assembly could also set an adjourned meeting for right before the next regular meeting and postpone the motion there.

I will agree that, generally, it is easier just to renew the motion at the next session.

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/20/2024 at 8:41 PM, J. J. said:

I disagree, at least on the global nature of the answer.

I can see situations where notice, perhaps even of several meetings, is required to adopt some action.  The notice was properly given for the September meeting, but for some reason, the assembly is not ready to decide the issue.  Without using a committee, the assembly may not be able to vote until the February or March meeting.  In such a case, it is reasonable to refer the matter to a committee of one. 

While more cumbersome, the assembly could also set an adjourned meeting for right before the next regular meeting and postpone the motion there.

I will agree that, generally, it is easier just to renew the motion at the next session.

I agree that, in this instance, it is not unreasonable to refer the motion to a committee of one, since the reason for doing so is to preserve the effectiveness of the previous notice which has been given.  

 

[Josh Martin]

On 7/20/2024 at 2:13 AM, TheGrandRascal said:

An organization only holds monthly meetings for nine months of the year -- let's say, from January through September. They do not meet in October, November, or December.

According to RONR, it is out of order to Postpone a main motion at the September meeting to the January meeting; that's beyond the quarterly time interval. However, the motion can go over by way of a committee report...

5. And lastly, if the organization really desires the convenience of being able to Postpone a main motion from its September meeting to it January meeting on a regular basis (howsoever inadvisably), what sort of Special Rule of Order should it adopt?

At this point I will ask, since I am curious...

Is there any particular reason why the assembly really wants to postpone this motion from its September meeting to its January meeting? Or in other words, is there any reason why the motion can't simply be postponed indefinitely and introduced anew in January?

As J.J. notes, there are hypothetical reasons why there may be benefit in carrying over the motion from September to January. But I am unclear on whether such a reason exists in this organization.

Edited July 21, 2024 at 01:38 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

As would be expected of me by those who have traveled a similar path with me before, the use of Commit for the purpose of "...preserv[ing] the effectiveness of the previous notice which has been given" is not in order on account that the stated purpose does not comport with the legitimate purposes for which the motion exists. RONR (12th ed.) 13:1. Some have previously tried to excuse misuses of the motion on the flimsy basis of the word, "generally", but I don't buy it for a moment. The giving of previous notice is not onerous, like keeping someone on life support. Parliamentary law need not countenance preserving it by a procedural version of CPR.

What is so interesting to me is that the response comes from Mr. Honemann. I have to begin to wonder if 13:1 precisely says what the authors actually intend to convey. 🙂

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/21/2024 at 9:38 AM, Josh Martin said:

As J.J. notes, there are hypothetical reasons why there may be benefit in carrying over the motion from September to January. But I am unclear on whether such a reason exists in this organization.

Well, this organization is nothing more than the product of the OP's imagination, and he hasn't mentioned any.

[J. J.]

On 7/20/2024 at 9:30 AM, Josh Martin said:

I take the position that it is in order, albeit silly.

I agree with Mr. Martin, in the general case.  It might be advisable, in the general case, to inform the member that he could renew the motion in January. 

However, I can see specific cases where it is both in order and not silly. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 7/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Some have previously tried to excuse misuses of the motion on the flimsy basis of the word, "generally", but I don't buy it for a moment.

Whether you "believe that" or not, those who use this argument are simply giving full effect to the language used. Had the authors meant to restrict the usage of Commit only "to send[ing] a pending question to a relatively small group of selected persons—a committee—so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider," they easily could have said so by using "only" or "exclusively"  instead of "generally." Or even by just omitting "generally."

On 7/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The giving of previous notice is not onerous

Perhaps not in your opinion, and that might even be a good argument against adopting the motion. But much depends on what the organization's specific previous notice requirement are. And in any event, that is a decision for the assembly to make.

On 7/21/2024 at 8:52 AM, Rob Elsman said:

What is so interesting to me is that the response comes from Mr. Honemann. I have to begin to wonder if 13:1 precisely says what the authors actually intend to convey. 🙂

Until I see convincing evidence to the contrary, I have to assume that the language means just what it says. Specifically, that the motion generally (not exclusively) is used for the stated purpose. 

[Rob Elsman]

I have to doubt very seriously that the authors intended to use "generally" as a stile over which every conceivable misuse of the motion could climb. I will wait for them to tell me differently.

If there is some clearly identifiable benefit to doing something that the rules do not permit, it should be the easiest thing to garner the necessary votes to suspend the interfering rules, in which case, no one would have a reasonable basis to complain about the rotten smell given off by the appearance of parliamentary shenanigans.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/21/2024 at 9:52 AM, Rob Elsman said:

What is so interesting to me is that the response comes from Mr. Honemann. I have to begin to wonder if 13:1 precisely says what the authors actually intend to convey. 🙂

I think that when a rule is said to be "generally" true, it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of one or more exceptions is implied.  To conclude otherwise is to say that the word was included for no particular purpose.

[Rob Elsman]

As far as I can determine, this motion is the only instance when "generally" is used by the authors to describe the motion's purpose. I agree that the authors are good at saying what they mean, and it is worthwhile to eliminate unreasonable interpretations in an attempt to excavate the real, intended meaning.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 7/21/2024 at 3:38 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I have to doubt very seriously that the authors intended to use "generally" as a stile over which every conceivable misuse of the motion could climb.

So do I. But I'm not advocating for "every conceivable misuse." I am simply saying that there are potentially some instances in which Commit legitimacy may be used for other than its "general" purpose.

On 7/21/2024 at 3:38 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I will wait for them to tell me differently.

Well, one of the authors already has agreed that at least one altyernate purpose may indeed be legitimate.

On 7/21/2024 at 3:38 PM, Rob Elsman said:

If there is some clearly identifiable benefit to doing something that the rules do not permit, it should be the easiest thing to garner the necessary votes to suspend the interfering rules,

I agree, assuming that suspension is necessary in teh first place. I just don't think suspension is necessary for every "non-standard:" use.

On 7/21/2024 at 4:07 PM, Rob Elsman said:

As far as I can determine, this motion is the only instance when "generally" is used by the authors to describe the motion's purpose. I agree that the authors are good at saying what they mean, and it is worthwhile to eliminate unreasonable interpretations in an attempt to excavate the real, intended meaning.

I agree. And to me, this simply support the argument that the general usage is not the only permissible usage. To me, it seems unreasoned to interpret the rule in a way that makes the use of "generally" superfluous.

[Gary Novosielski]

3:2
In reading all that follows throughout this manual, it should be borne in mind that—as in any treatment of any subject—a statement of a rule generally cannot include all possible exceptions to the rule.  😇 

 

[Rob Elsman]

But, why keep going back again and again to that all-too-familiar junk drawer of fake, mischievous parliamentary maneuvers when doing the right thing is so easy peasy? I am adverse to giving him his due to the all-too-common person who thinks parliamentary procedure is just a bag of dirty tricks to be used by a smarty-pants, too clever by half, to get his own way in a meeting at the expense of others. The right thing is so easy.

Edited July 21, 2024 at 10:50 PM by Rob Elsman

[Weldon Merritt]

On 7/21/2024 at 4:30 PM, Rob Elsman said:

But, why keep going back again and again to that all-too-familiar junk drawer of fake, mischievous parliamentary maneuvers when doing the right thing is so easy peasy?

I don't think any f us are advocating using "fake, mischievous parliamentary maneuvers.." We just differ on whether it is ever legitimate to use Commit to carry a motion over beyond a quarterly interval without expecting the committee to which it is referred to actuary do anything with the motion. It seems obvious to me that if the word "generally" is to given effect, it must mean that there are excerptions to the general purpose of the rule. My personal view is that any exception should be very rare and very narrow. But I think they do exists under certain circumstances.

Also, as I have previously stated in another thread, even without allowing for any exceptions, it would be easy enough for a member to include committee instructions in a motion to commit, even if he really was not interested in having the committee do anything. Then when the committee reports, if the member doesn't like the recommendation, he certainly can argue against it. And unless the chair is a mind reader, he would be hard-pressed to rule that the instructions were a sham to get around the quarterly interval rule.

But it's obvious that we are not likely to ever agree on this issue, I've said about all I have to say about it. Unless some of the authors care to expand upon what Mr. Honemann has already said. In that event, I would carefully consider their opinions and their reasoning, and I might be persuaded to change my mind. Might you?

[J. J.]

On 7/21/2024 at 5:30 PM, Rob Elsman said:

But, why keep going back again and again to that all-too-familiar junk drawer of fake, mischievous parliamentary maneuvers when doing the right thing is so easy peasy? I am adverse to giving him his due to the all-too-common person who thinks parliamentary procedure is just a bag of dirty tricks to be used by a smarty-pants, too clever by half, to get his own way in a meeting at the expense of others. The right thing is so easy.

Because often times it is not easy. 

[Richard Brown]

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with referring the motion to a committee of one to report back at the next regular meeting which will take place one month beyond the quarterly time interval. In my opinion, the rules in RONR permit it.

[Dan Honemann]

On 7/21/2024 at 10:45 PM, Richard Brown said:

FWIW, I see nothing wrong with referring the motion to a committee of one to report back at the next regular meeting which will take place one month beyond the quarterly time interval. In my opinion, the rules in RONR permit it.

This response isn't very helpful because it fails to tell us what facts you have in mind for this purely hypothetical situation.

I have previously indicated that, based solely on the facts originally provided, the question which the presiding officer has to answer is whether or not it is "reasonable" to permit the use of this motion for "the sole and actual purpose" of postponing a question beyond the limit imposed by the rules applicable to the motion to Postpone (RONR, 12th ed., 13:9).  I think it is not reasonable to do so, and that the answer to 3 is yes, the chair can and should rule it out of order.  Are you referring to this situation?

I have also agreed with J.J. that the motion is in order if its purpose is to preserve the effectiveness of a notice previously given. Are you referring to this situation?

Some other situation?

 

[laser158689]

A couple of stray thoughts as this also applies with the end of an elected term for members of the assembly (think government bodies)...

1) Not just prior notice...  Some organizations are at the tail end of a LONG process.  Starting over, or even mid-way, with that process may be onerous, or politically distasteful (wasting the time of the upstream organizations).  Given this, the Postpone Indefinitely option may not be an acceptable one.
 

2) The members of the assembly can decide for themselves how critical they think this RONR prohibition is.  After the Chair rules the motion to postpone Out of Order, simply appeal it.  (This may not be a "good" practice - rule by exception or expediency - but it is their assembly.)

 

Thanks to @Josh Martin for his suggestion on the Special Rule of Order.  That's inspiring some thinking!

[Josh Martin]

On 7/22/2024 at 10:21 AM, laser158689 said:

1) Not just prior notice...  Some organizations are at the tail end of a LONG process.  Starting over, or even mid-way, with that process may be onerous, or politically distasteful (wasting the time of the upstream organizations).  Given this, the Postpone Indefinitely option may not be an acceptable one.

But what exactly do you mean by this reference to a "LONG process?"

Are you referring, perhaps, to organizations which have "three readings" rule or something of that kind?

Unless there is something requiring previous notice, or something else in the organization's rules on this matter, "starting over" is as simple as reintroducing the main motion, in exactly the wording as it was when it was postponed indefinitely (or as modified, if improvements have been discovered since that meeting).

Now, if the organization does have rules that would make "starting over" more complicated, then I certainly agree that changes things.

On 7/22/2024 at 10:21 AM, laser158689 said:

2) The members of the assembly can decide for themselves how critical they think this RONR prohibition is.  After the Chair rules the motion to postpone Out of Order, simply appeal it.  (This may not be a "good" practice - rule by exception or expediency - but it is their assembly.)

Members are of course free to appeal the decision of the chair, but the members' judgment on this matter should be based upon the members' honest interpretation of the rules on this matter. To say that making a decision on an interpretation of the rules based on expediency is not a good practice is a dramatic understatement. Making decisions in this manner sets a very dangerous precedent. Preventing this sort of thing is why assemblies follow rules in the first place.

"And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be an uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members. It is very material that order, decency and regularity, be preserved in a dignified public body." Jefferson's Manual, Sec. 1

Now, I happen to personally be of the opinion that I believe the motion is "in order, but silly," but if members in fact believe the motion is out of order, then they should vote that it is out of order on appeal, notwithstanding their personal opinions on the merits of the motion.

Edited July 22, 2024 at 03:34 PM by Josh Martin