Question about timing

[Guest Pete Dawson]

If anyone can help me, I'd be grateful. During our meeting, we were given 30 minutes to express pros and cons of the tentative agreement. In the middle of the 30 minutes, a motion was made to end the discussion and vote. That motion was voted down. Does that 5 minutes count as part of the 30 minutes of discussion? There were several people who were on the con side who still wished to express their views.

Thanks for any clarification you can give.

[Dan Honemann]

If anyone can help me, I'd be grateful. During our meeting, we were given 30 minutes to express pros and cons of the tentative agreement. In the middle of the 30 minutes, a motion was made to end the discussion and vote. That motion was voted down. Does that 5 minutes count as part of the 30 minutes of discussion? There were several people who were on the con side who still wished to express their views.

Thanks for any clarification you can give.

The answer to your question may depend upon the exact language of the order that the assembly adopted which limited debate to 30 minutes, but in any event, any doubt about it should have been resolved by raising a point of order at the time.

[Chris Harrison]

I would also question why it took five minutes to deal with the Previous Question (stop debate and vote)? The motion is not debatable so a member would move the Previous Question, the Chair would put the question, and the members would vote. If 2/3 were in favor of stopping debate then debate would stop, if there wasn't 2/3 in favor debate would continue. Such a process should take a minute at most absent some strange circumstances. See RONR pp. 189-201.

[Tim Wynn]

I would also question why it took five minutes to deal with the Previous Question...

Four and a half minutes waiting for a second... perhaps?

[David A Foulkes]

I would also question why it took five minutes to deal with the Previous Question (stop debate and vote)? The motion is not debatable ....

Although the assumption that the assembly knew RONR well-enough to know this is.

[Rob Elsman]

The time it takes to dispose of a motion for the Previous Question is not charged to the previously-adopted thirty-minute limit for debate on the pending question.

[Chris Harrison]

The time it takes to dispose of a motion for the Previous Question is not charged to the previously-adopted thirty-minute limit for debate on the pending question.

That would make sense but does RONR actually say that?

[Rob Elsman]

That would make sense but does RONR actually say that?

I would suggest that the disposition of a motion for the Previous Question is not debate, as defined in RONR (10th ed.), p. 373, ll. 12-15.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Does that 5 minutes count as part of the 30 minutes of discussion? ... Thanks for any clarification you can give.

Examples where the same net result (a.) will; (b.) won't; be subject to the "subtraction" process of other motions.

ASSUME:

The hour is eight o'clock.

The chair moved down the agenda.

The chair announces the next item of business. (Call it "the Johnson resolution").

Immediately, a member gains recognition from the floor, and makes a relevant motion, which is adopted via unanimous consent.

Scenario #1

The adopted motion is: "To allot sixty minutes for this agenda item."

Scenario #2

The adopted motion is: "To vote on this resolution at nine o'clock."

In my opinion, in scenario #1, you ought to subtract time for any motion not directly arising out of the agenda item. A Question of Privilege is one such example. Why? Because the Question of Privilege raised between 8:00 and 9:00 may likely be unrelated to what is pending. And the intent of the first motion, in my opinion, is to dedicate 60 minutes of pure focus, pure concentration, on the issue, and not merely count ticks on the clock.

The priority is "think time, debate time." The priority is not "ending this issue definitively by a deadline."

In my opinion, in scenario #2, you cannot subtract any time from any motion. Why? Because the intent of the motion, in my opinion, is to give members warning to be in the room at that hour for voting, regardless of the distractions and side-motions which may occur between 8:00 and 9:00.

The priority is "ending this issue definitely by a deadline"; the priority is not "think time, debate time."

Thus, the wording of the motion would spin the interpretation 180 degrees, regarding whether it is fair and reasonable to subtract out time from the alloted time for other motions moved (and maybe debated) while the clock ticks under each scenario.

[Rob Elsman]

Examples where the same net result (a.) will; (b.) won't; be subject to the "subtraction" process of other motions.

ASSUME:

The hour is eight o'clock.

The chair moved down the agenda.

The chair announces the next item of business. (Call it "the Johnson resolution").

Immediately, a member gains recognition from the floor, and makes a relevant motion, which is adopted via unanimous consent.

Scenario #1

The adopted motion is: "To allot sixty minutes for this agenda item."

Scenario #2

The adopted motion is: "To vote on this resolution at nine o'clock."

In my opinion, in scenario #1, you ought to subtract time for any motion not directly arising out of the agenda item. A Question of Privilege is one such example. Why? Because the Question of Privilege raised between 8:00 and 9:00 may likely be unrelated to what is pending. And the intent of the first motion, in my opinion, is to dedicate 60 minutes of pure focus, pure concentration, on the issue, and not merely count ticks on the clock.

The priority is "think time, debate time." The priority is not "ending this issue definitively by a deadline."

In my opinion, in scenario #2, you cannot subtract any time from any motion. Why? Because the intent of the motion, in my opinion, is to give members warning to be in the room at that hour for voting, regardless of the distractions and side-motions which may occur between 8:00 and 9:00.

The priority is "ending this issue definitely by a deadline"; the priority is not "think time, debate time."

Thus, the wording of the motion would spin the interpretation 180 degrees, regarding whether it is fair and reasonable to subtract out time from the alloted time for other motions moved (and maybe debated) while the clock ticks under each scenario.

Neither of these motions are in proper form. I doubt I would admit either of them if I were in the chair.

[Dan Honemann]

Neither of these motions are in proper form. I doubt I would admit either of them if I were in the chair.

This thread is deteriorating rapidly, as so often happens when material facts are not known.

As noted in the initial response, much depends upon the exact wording (which has not been provided) of the order which was adopted limiting debate. We can all make up our own, but it isn't very helpful.