The Suspend the Rules Script

[Chris Harrison]

In this script I see two things that sees a bit improper procedurally (though nothing too bad) and I am wondering if you all can help me with that.

1) On pages 1-2 of the script Mr. Hickory makes the motion to Suspend the Rules to have the parliamentarian be the Chair pro tem, the President says no way, Mr. Hickory Appeals from the ruling, the President says there's nothing to Appeal, Mr. Hickory raises a Point of Order, the President says sit down and shut up (pretty much), Mr. Hickory makes the motion to Suspend the Rules again, and the President says to sit down again. At that point Mr. Hickory puts the question on Suspending the Rules standing in his place.

My question is (per RONR p. 642) shouldn't Mr. Hickory (standing in his place) have addressed the Appeal first before jumping into the motion on Suspending the Rules? It seems that the whole issue on the Appeal was rolled right over.

2) On page 2 of the script Mr. Hickory says:

The Question of Privilege is to Suspend the Rules and appoint our

Parliamentarian to serve as Chairman Pro Tem for the duration of this meeting.

RONR permits rules of order, even when placed in the bylaws, to be suspended with

a two-thirds vote, and further specifies that the duties of officers in connection with a

meeting are rules of order.

Are you ready for the question? [pause] ...As many as are in favor of...

My question is (per the footnote on RONR p. 36) shouldn't the question have been put directly instead of asking if they were ready for the question? Or was the motion amendable or debatable in some way?

[J. J.]

In this script I see two things that sees a bit improper procedurally (though nothing too bad) and I am wondering if you all can help me with that.

1) On pages 1-2 of the script Mr. Hickory makes the motion to Suspend the Rules to have the parliamentarian be the Chair pro tem, the President says no way, Mr. Hickory Appeals from the ruling, the President says there's nothing to Appeal, Mr. Hickory raises a Point of Order, the President says sit down and shut up (pretty much), Mr. Hickory makes the motion to Suspend the Rules again, and the President says to sit down again. At that point Mr. Hickory puts the question on Suspending the Rules standing in his place.

My question is (per RONR p. 642) shouldn't Mr. Hickory (standing in his place) have addressed the Appeal first before jumping into the motion on Suspending the Rules? It seems that the whole issue on the Appeal was rolled right over.

As per p. 643 l. 16-19, no. The chair's failure to rule on the Point of Order triggers the members ability to point the motion from his place.

[Chris Harrison]

As per p. 643 l. 16-19, no. The chair's failure to rule on the Point of Order triggers the members ability to point the motion from his place.

Ok. But it seems that the President had ruled the motion to Suspend the Rules out of order which is why Mr. Hickory Appealed the ruling. When the President refused to entertain the Appeal that would seem to be the time for Mr. Hickory to state the question on the Appeal. I don't really understand why it was done the way the script laid out.

[J. J.]

Ok. But it seems that the President had ruled the motion to Suspend the Rules out of order which is why Mr. Hickory Appealed the ruling. When the President refused to entertain the Appeal that would seem to be the time for Mr. Hickory to state the question on the Appeal. I don't really understand why it was done the way the script laid out.

The motion to appeal ultimately arises out of the consideration of the motion to suspend the rules. The chair, by declining to entertain the appeal, has permitted the member to put the underlying motion from the floor.

[Josh Martin]

My question is (per the footnote on RONR p. 36) shouldn't the question have been put directly instead of asking if they were ready for the question? Or was the motion amendable or debatable in some way?

Since the motion was suspending a rule of order for the duration of the meeting and no motion was pending, I believe it would have been an incidental main motion and therefore debatable. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 72, lines 2-5) The citation refers to a standing rule suspended for the duration of a session, but I believe the same principle would apply.

[Chris Harrison]

Since the motion was suspending a rule of order for the duration of the meeting and no motion was pending, I believe it would have been an incidental main motion and therefore debatable. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 72, lines 2-5) The citation refers to a standing rule suspended for the duration of a session, but I believe the same principle would apply.

Even though Standard Descriptive Characteristic #5 says it is not debatable with no qualifiers?

[Josh Martin]

Even though Standard Descriptive Characteristic #5 says it is not debatable with no qualifiers?

SDC #5 for Suspend the Rules is not controlling if it is made as an incidental main motion. For a comparable example, note that a motion relating to nominations is debatable when made as an incidental main motion. (RONR, 10th ed., tinted pgs. 20-21, #53)

[alanh49]

Even though Standard Descriptive Characteristic #5 says it is not debatable with no qualifiers?

But, there is a qualifier P.252 l.28

"The incidental motion to suspend the rules:

In other words the Standard Descriptive Characteristics listed on page 252 & 253 only apply to the incidental motion

[Chris Harrison]

SDC #5 for Suspend the Rules is not controlling if it is made as an incidental main motion. For a comparable example, note that a motion relating to nominations is debatable when made as an incidental main motion. (RONR, 10th ed., tinted pgs. 20-21, #53)

I don't see anywhere in RONR where it says that Suspend the Rules can be an IMM (if I am missing it please give me a citation). Also, I know that there are normally undebatable motions which are debatable when no question is pending (such as Adjourn and Recess) where the section on the motion provides for it. However, I see nothing in the section on Suspend the Rules which discusses that. Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that since there is no discussion in the section on Suspend the Rules of it being a IMM when no motion is pending (where such discussion is found for other motions) that it could not be properly done.

[Chris Harrison]

But, there is a qualifier P.252 l.28

"The incidental motion to suspend the rules:

In other words the Standard Descriptive Characteristics listed on page 252 & 253 only apply to the incidental motion

Right, but I don't see it discussing there being a possibility of a IMM when no question is pending (as there is for Adjourn and Recess).

[Josh Martin]

I don't see anywhere in RONR where it says that Suspend the Rules can be an IMM (if I am missing it please give me a citation).

As I noted, RONR, 10th ed., pg. 72, lines 2-5 refers to suspending a standing rule for the duration of a session when no motion is pending being an IMM, and I would argue that the same applies to rules of order.

Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that since there is no discussion in the section on Suspend the Rules of it being a IMM when no motion is pending (where such discussion is found for other motions) that it could not be properly done.

I am not suggesting that all motions to Suspend the Rules when no motion is pending would be IMMs.

[Ann Rempel]

In the most recent NP, tThere is a correction to an answer in the Q&As of the previous issue. The correction has to do with Suspend the Rules and IMM. You might want to take a look at that correction to see if it is relevant to this discussion. I am "on the road" and don't have the NP with me. I mention this because Mr. Balch is on the NP Research Team (Q&A Committee).

[Josh Martin]

In the most recent NP, tThere is a correction to an answer in the Q&As of the previous issue. The correction has to do with Suspend the Rules and IMM. You might want to take a look at that correction to see if it is relevant to this discussion. I am "on the road" and don't have the NP with me. I mention this because Mr. Balch is on the NP Research Team (Q&A Committee).

The article deals with a somewhat different instance, but part of the process used to determine whether it was an incidental motion could also be applied here - looking at the definition of an incidental motion and seeing if the particular motion "fits" that description. In my view, a motion to suspend a rule of order to have a different presiding officer for the rest of the meeting does not meet the definition of an incidental motion in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 66, lines 19-27, and it would thus be an incidental main motion.