Suspend The Rules

[David A Foulkes]

1. When a motion to Suspend The Rules is adopted, are "all" the rules suspended? P.253 ll 23-27 seems to indicate no, only the rule(s) that prevent the assembly from doing something, although the specific rule(s) are not enumerated in the motion itself.

For example, a motion to STR to allow non-members to speak in debate would not also suspend other rules (such as limiting debate), as the motion should seemingly be made as "I move to Suspend The Rules to allow non-members to speak in debate", thus in a fashion defining which rule(s) are to be suspended.

2. If such a motion as above were adopted, would non-members be allowed to speak in debate on all subsequent motions? When would that motion "expire?" In an attempt to restrict that, would the motion also need to include such wording as "... speak in debate on the pending question?"

3. Through what process would the assembly UN-suspend The Rules, returning the meeting back to "normal?"

4a. P. 256 ll.20-24 provide some confusion. If a vote to Suspend The Rules, as described in this section, requires 2/3 vote and notice, or a majority of the entire membership, a motion as indicated above in 1) could not be made on the spur of the moment (without notice, that is) except for the requirement of a majority vote of the entire membership. Is that a correct understanding of this sentence?

4b. The last part of that section "hence, it requires a two-thirds vote for its suspension" seems to contradict section b.) immediately preceding. Is it 2/3, or majority of the entire membership?

[Dan Honemann]

Read that sentence on page 256 again.

[David A Foulkes]

Read that sentence on page 256 again.

[George Mervosh]

Don't sweat it, David. That "d'oh" feeling often happens after Dan posts. Ah, I remember the days when I cringed when he replied after me. Hmmm, come to think of it, I still do

[Gary c Tesser]

WRT # 1 - 3. I remember batting this question around with Tim Wynn a year or two ago. I have the dawning guilty suspicion that I spent about a month dithering over an analysis that I kept shredding in frustration and despair (hmm, no wonder the keys stick), coming to no firm or even tentative conclusion, unlike this thread eventually. Hmm, I guess I owe him a letter. Maybe send him the last draft, it's probably over there scotch-taped onto the hard drive.

1. Considering the wording on p. 253, lines 25 - 30, and the first example on p. 257, I'm inclined to say the suspension is instant and specific. Which means that to suspend the rules "to allow non-members to speak in debate" is improperly vague and open-ended; as with an incomplete motion to commit (p. 165 or so) or any flawed motion (p. 46 or so -- I would look it up for you but my fingers are over here on the keyboard and my copy of the book is way over there under my right elbow), the chair should gently assist the mover in wording his motion in a complete and proper form.

(Assuming I"m right about that, so far.) What happens if this vaguely phrased suspension is adopted, might be just another one of those instances in which, when proper procedure is mangled, the book is of limited assistance in cleaning up the mess.

2. (I think I addressed these questions above. Did I?)

3. The suspension would automatically expire.

[J. J.]

2. If such a motion as above were adopted, would non-members be allowed to speak in debate on all subsequent motions? When would that motion "expire?" In an attempt to restrict that, would the motion also need to include such wording as "... speak in debate on the pending question?"

Is this the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules or is it the incidental main motion to suspend the rules. If the the latter, how is it qualified?

3. Through what process would the assembly UN-suspend The Rules, returning the meeting back to "normal?"

Same question.

[Trina]

....

3. The suspension would automatically expire.

I think David may be asking about actively cancelling the suspension (rather than just waiting for it to expire 'naturally', either when the stated conditions of the suspension run out, or at the end of the meeting, whichever comes first).

[David A Foulkes]

I think David may be asking about actively cancelling the suspension (rather than just waiting for it to expire 'naturally', either when the stated conditions of the suspension run out, or at the end of the meeting, whichever comes first).

Yes. Example: a motion to "Suspend the Rules to let the visiting representatives of the Lollipop Guild speak in debate on paving the Yellow Brick Road" is adopted. (It's expected they will present heavy opposition, of course) At some point, an assembly member feels it would be in the assembly's best interest if the LGers no longer had the right to speak in debate, despite not all of them having gotten their licks in.

How do you thus 'un'-spend the rules?

[David A Foulkes]

2. If such a motion as above were adopted, would non-members be allowed to speak in debate on all subsequent motions? When would that motion "expire?" In an attempt to restrict that, would the motion also need to include such wording as "... speak in debate on the pending question?"

Is this the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules or is it the incidental main motion to suspend the rules. If the the latter, how is it qualified?

I'm not sure what would be the difference. Not saying there is none, just that I'm not clear on that. Section 25 seems to be about the former so that has been the focus of my attention. I wonder (by virtue of your asking) then what might be different about the two forms as it relates to my question?

Again, not sure on this either. If you could offer an example or two of how an IMM would be qualified, I might be able to go further with it.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure what would be the difference. Not saying there is none, just that I'm not clear on that. Section 25 seems to be about the former so that has been the focus of my attention. I wonder (by virtue of your asking) then what might be different about the two forms as it relates to my question?

Again, not sure on this either. If you could offer an example or two of how an IMM would be qualified, I might be able to go further with it.

Yes.

The incidental motion would apply to the to the pending question (or the soon to be pending question), as this is "a purpose connected to that motion (p. 252, l. 22-3)." It would not apply beyond the consideration of that specified motion (p 253, l. 22-27).

The IMM would apply to the session, or part of the session to which the motion specifies. The IMM can be both reconsidered or rescinded; it could not be renewed otherwise (unless the rules are suspended).

[David A Foulkes]

Yes.

The incidental motion would apply to the to the pending question (or the soon to be pending question), as this is "a purpose connected to that motion (p. 252, l. 22-3)." It would not apply beyond the consideration of that specified motion (p 253, l. 22-27).

The IMM would apply to the session, or part of the session to which the motion specifies. The IMM can be both reconsidered or rescinded; it could not be renewed otherwise (unless the rules are suspended).

So, as I read this, an IM to STR to allow non-member debate would "expire" when the chair puts the question on the pending (main) motion, thus ending the debate phase. An IMM, unless qualified in some manner to limit its application (say during consideration of a motion on the agenda yet to be brought to the floor), might be in force until adjournment, allowing non-member debate on any number of motions.

Getting warmer?

[J. J.]

So, as I read this, an IM to STR to allow non-member debate would "expire" when the chair puts the question on the pending (main) motion, thus ending the debate phase. An IMM, unless qualified in some manner to limit its application (say during consideration of a motion on the agenda yet to be brought to the floor), might be in force until adjournment, allowing non-member debate on any number of motions.

Getting warmer?

The IMM would have to be qualified, as should the IM. However, if there was a pending motion, an IMM would not be in order.

If someone should "To suspend the rules to permit [non-member] J. J. to enter into debate" while a debatable motion was pending, and the chair does not inquire as to what the member is referring to, I would say it refers to the immediate pending debatable motion.

I think it could be qualified to include all motions related to the motion, i.e. an IM:

"To suspend the rules to permit [non-member] J. J. to enter into debate on the main motion and those debatable motions arising from it."

"To suspend the rules to permit [non-member] J. J. to enter into debate while the motion is before the assembly."

[Tim Wynn]

Hmm, I guess I owe him a letter.

Yes, you do.

[Josh Martin]

2. If such a motion as above were adopted, would non-members be allowed to speak in debate on all subsequent motions? When would that motion "expire?" In an attempt to restrict that, would the motion also need to include such wording as "... speak in debate on the pending question?"

The motion to suspend the rules should clearly state the intended purpose, which would include the conditions for its expiration. The incidental motion to suspend the rules would apply, at most, to all pending motions. The IMM version would apply, at most, to the entire session. The motion could be restricted as desired, although if made without qualification, I would assume it to apply to the immediately pending motion.

3. Through what process would the assembly UN-suspend The Rules, returning the meeting back to "normal?"

The motion would expire naturally. If it is an incidental main motion, it could be rescinded or reconsidered to end it early. If it is made as an incidental motion, the only way to end the effect early would be through another motion to Suspend the Rules, since the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be rescinded or reconsidered.

[David A Foulkes]

If it is made as an incidental motion, the only way to end the effect early would be through another motion to Suspend the Rules, since the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be rescinded or reconsidered.

I'm unclear on how another motion to Suspend The Rules would Un-Suspend them. I'd be interested in learning how to do that.

It occurred to me that, similar to Lay On and Take From the Table, there almost seems like there should be a similar motion here. Yank Up The Rules. Reel In The Rules. Hoist The Rules. Weigh The Rules.

[Josh Martin]

I'm unclear on how another motion to Suspend The Rules would Un-Suspend them. I'd be interested in learning how to do that.

It seems to me the same principles would apply as for Limit or Extend Limits of Debate. Since the 2/3 vote meets the requirement for rescinding or amending something (or for Suspending the Rules, for that matter), one motion to Suspend the Rules does not prevent another conflicting motion from being made. Thus, if one wishes to "amend" or "rescind" a motion to Suspend the Rules, another motion to Suspend the Rules is made. The rule being suspended is the effect of the previous motion to suspend the rules.

I'll try to craft an example. Mr. Z is a non-member.

"Member A: I move to suspend the rules to allow Mr. Z to speak in debate on all pending questions.

(Motion is adopted. After a few minutes, the members start to get sick of Mr. Z.)

Member B: I move to suspend the rules so that Mr. Z can no longer speak on any pending question.

(Motion is adopted. Mr. Z goes in the corner and pouts.)"

It occurred to me that, similar to Lay On and Take From the Table, there almost seems like there should be a similar motion here. Yank Up The Rules. Reel In The Rules. Hoist The Rules. Weigh The Rules.

I don't see what useful purpose that would serve. Suspend the Rules as an IMM can be rescinded, and I think it's going to be quite rare that an assembly will need to end the effect of Suspend the Rules as an IM early.

[Tim Wynn]

3. Through what process would the assembly UN-suspend The Rules, returning the meeting back to "normal?"

David,

If if helps, I always contend that suspending the rules should be thought of as giving a certain action Immunity to any rules that would prevent it from taking place. The truth is, nothing happens to a rule that gets in the way, except that it is powerless against the specified action.

If the rules are suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate, such an action (of allowing the nonmember to speak) is immune to the rules that would prohibit it. However, this does not create any RIGHT for that nonmember to speak in debate, nor does it create any new rule on the matter. If the assembly decides to no longer allow the nonmember to speak (which would be a question of privilege), there is simply NO RULE that would prohibit such a decision from being made.

As I have stated here before (to many rolling eyes -- Mr. Elsman), suspension of the rules to allow a nonmember to speak in debate does not give that nonmember the right to be recognized by the chair, because no rule exists that the chair must recognize a nonmember. Just as there's no rule that you can't throw a brick at the presiding officer's head because you don't need such a rule, there's no rule that a nonmember -- for whom the rules have been suspended for the purpose of allowing him to speak in debate -- must be recognized by the chair. Just the same, there's no need for this rule, because it's common sense that the assembly wants to hear from him, since they suspended the rules to do so, but it creates a confusing situation if members mistakenly construe this action as having created new rules just for this nonmember.

Also, as you know, the nonmember could be tossed out (gently), if the assembly so desired, thereby ending his participation in debate.

[Tim Wynn]

Member B: I move to suspend the rules so that Mr. Z can no longer speak on any pending question.

I disagree. If a member moved "that Mr. Z (a nonmember) no longer be allowed to speak on any question," I know of no rule that would make this motion out of order. So, there would be no rule that needed to be (or that could be) suspended.

What rule would you cite that allows Mr. Z (a nonmember) to speak on any question? The assembly certainly didn't make a special rule of order on the subject.

[Josh Martin]

If the rules are suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate, such an action (of allowing the nonmember to speak) is immune to the rules that would prohibit it. However, this does not create any RIGHT for that nonmember to speak in debate, nor does it create any new rule on the matter. If the assembly decides to no longer allow the nonmember to speak (which would be a question of privilege), there is simply NO RULE that would prohibit such a decision from being made.

Hm. Okay. This I'll buy. I like this better than the complicated stuff I said.

As I have stated here before (to many rolling eyes -- Mr. Elsman), suspension of the rules to allow a nonmember to speak in debate does not give that nonmember the right to be recognized by the chair, because no rule exists that the chair must recognize a nonmember.

And as I've stated before, that's ridiculous. It's one thing to suggest that the assembly can decide not to let a member speak in debate anymore. It's quite another to suggest that the chair could refuse to recognize a nonmember after a motion has been made to suspend the rules to let him speak in debate.

[Tim Wynn]

And as I've stated before, that's ridiculous. It's one thing to suggest that the assembly can decide not to let a member speak in debate anymore. It's quite another to suggest that the chair could refuse to recognize a nonmember after a motion has been made to suspend the rules to let him speak in debate.

I think I'm often misunderstood on this point. I'm not suggesting that the chair should (or would be right to) ignore the will of the assembly. However, I do feel it's very important that no one construes this nonmember as having the status of a member.

If a member seeking the floor is ignored by the chair, a point of order could be raised, citing page 28, line 17 - 19 (or 364, 16-17): "The chair must recognize any member who seeks the floor while entitled to it."

If a nonmember is ignored by the chair, what point of order could be raised (which rule has the chair violated)? What citation could be given?

Say the chair says, "I hate that person. He's a nonmember, and I will not recognize him." Will the assembly then have to order the chair to recognize the nonmember, or can they point to a rule that already dictates that he must? If it's the former, I maintain that no such rule exists; if it's the latter, I would like to know where that rule is written.

(I'll continue to occasionally beat this horse, until someone convinces me that it's dead )

[David A Foulkes]

(I'll continue to occasionally beat this horse, until someone convinces me that it's dead )

[Josh Martin]

I think I'm often misunderstood on this point. I'm not suggesting that the chair should (or would be right to) ignore the will of the assembly. However, I do feel it's very important that no one construes this nonmember as having the status of a member.

If a member seeking the floor is ignored by the chair, a point of order could be raised, citing page 28, line 17 - 19 (or 364, 16-17): "The chair must recognize any member who seeks the floor while entitled to it."

If a nonmember is ignored by the chair, what point of order could be raised (which rule has the chair violated)? What citation could be given?

Say the chair says, "I hate that person. He's a nonmember, and I will not recognize him." Will the assembly then have to order the chair to recognize the nonmember, or can they point to a rule that already dictates that he must? If it's the former, I maintain that no such rule exists; if it's the latter, I would like to know where that rule is written.

(I'll continue to occasionally beat this horse, until someone convinces me that it's dead )

I'm suggesting that when the assembly adopted the motion to Suspend the Rules, it already ordered the chair to recognize the nonmember. I can't imagine a circumstance where the assembly would adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules with the intent that the nonmember would be recognized only if the chair felt like it. While motions should certainly be carefully worded, it shouldn't be necessary to state the obvious. The chair's role is to facilitate the conduct of business in the assembly, not to look for loopholes in motions so he can do what he wants.

[Gary c Tesser]

I think I'm often misunderstood on this point. I'm not suggesting that the chair should (or would be right to) ignore the will of the assembly. However, I do feel it's very important that no one construes this nonmember as having the status of a member.

If a member seeking the floor is ignored by the chair, a point of order could be raised, citing page 28, line 17 - 19 (or 364, 16-17): "The chair must recognize any member who seeks the floor while entitled to it."

If a nonmember is ignored by the chair, what point of order could be raised (which rule has the chair violated)? What citation could be given?

Say the chair says, "I hate that person. He's a nonmember, and I will not recognize him." Will the assembly then have to order the chair to recognize the nonmember, or can they point to a rule that already dictates that he must? If it's the former, I maintain that no such rule exists; if it's the latter, I would like to know where that rule is written.

(I'll continue to occasionally beat this horse, until someone convinces me that it's dead )

(Not yet having found the draft of my months-old reply to Tim Wynn, I'm embarrassed some to be chiming in here. I apologize to Mr Wynn; here goes....)

1. While I find Mr Martin's idea that suspending the rule implicitly (or intrinsically -- which works better here?) orders the chair to recognize the non-member (1:01 PM) eminently sensible, I don't quite see that it has connected the dots. He didn't directly refute Mr Wynn's "'I hate that person'" argument (12:18 PM), and I'd like to see that done. (Although, "Don't be silly, Gary" might qualify as a satisfactory explanation. But disappointingly un-nerdy.)

2. Tim, let's say it's obviously the intention of the assembly, by suspending that rule, that the non-member have more or less equal, if not just plain equal, status with the members for assignment of the floor (for the duration of the suspension). Setting aside the obvious, and the dictates of common sense (TW, 13 July 2010 - 08:52 PM), and the animus of the capricious, probably cyclothymic chair and looking, in a perhaps indulgently persnickety way, at the nuts-and-bolts of procedure: what would it take, in addition to suspending the rule, to definitively establish that status?

(N. B. I got "cyclothymic" from the first page of the divine "Dimension of Miracles," by the awesome Robert Sheckley. Also on that first page, Sheckley spoke of the same described character's "elegiac contours of his disposition." Apparently Sheckley did it to brace the readers with the warning not to mess with him, 'cause for the rest of the book he wrote like us normal persons. Much like Henry James, in "Portrait of a Lady," writing a two-page sentence on the 2nd-3rd page, and thereafter writing the book like a normal person, or at least like a more normal Henry James.)

[Edited per usual]

[David A Foulkes]

What I take from all of the above is this:

Suspending the rules removes the obstacle to something being done. It does not mandate that it must be done. However, in such suspension it is (or seems it should be) implicit, intrinsic, or just plain understood that it can be done, and as such, is the will of the assembly to allow it without further obstacle.

Taking down a Do Not Enter sign at a roadway does not require anyone to enter (they can still drive by), but should they desire to do so, they may without further restriction exclusive of such other "rules" such as speed limit, staying to the correct side of the road, stopping for pedestrians in crosswalk, etc.

Allowing non-members to speak in debate (normally prevented by parliamentary procedures and enforced by the Chair, but hereafter and for an appropriate length of time allowed by the assembly, having ultimate authority) does not require them to speak, but should they choose to do so, no further obstacle (such as the Chair refusing to acknowledge the non-member when he properly attempts to obtain the floor) should impede them, although they are still constrained by any other rules (limits of length of speech, number of times to speak, obtaining the floor, germaneness of topic, etc) not suspended.

That said, as I understand it the "right" of a non-member to speak so allowed is revocable, although I suspect it takes another motion and approval of the assembly to do so, this being in the case of an IMM a motion to Rescind or Reconsider, or in the case of an IM........ hmmm...... well, in all honesty I'm not sure what. A motion to "no longer allow non-members to speak in debate?"

I don't see how a motion to Suspend the Rules is applicable as a method of "un"-suspending the rules, since (as I gather) no rule was created by the original suspension. Since the IM cannot be rescinded or reconsidered, I'm left thinking all that remains is a motion (another IM?) to simply stop allowing non-members to speak any further. And in that cloud of confusion is where I can found for the moment.

[alanh49]

I don't see how a motion to Suspend the Rules is applicable as a method of "un"-suspending the rules, since (as I gather) no rule was created by the original suspension. Since the IM cannot be rescinded or reconsidered, I'm left thinking all that remains is a motion (another IM?) to simply stop allowing non-members to speak any further. And in that cloud of confusion is where I can found for the moment.

What would be wrong with this motion "I move that we return to the normal rules of debate"

Also why can't an IM to suspend the rules be rescinded or reconsidered in this case.