George Mervosh Posted July 15, 2010 at 05:47 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 05:47 PM What would be wrong with this motion "I move that we return to the the normal rules of debate"Also why can't an IM to suspend the rules be rescinded or reconsidered in this case.I'm not sure it can be rescinded, Alan, looking at SDC#2 on p. 294. It doesn't seem to apply to an incidental motion.Also, it cannot be reconsidered (SDC#8 p. 253) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanh49 Posted July 15, 2010 at 06:51 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 06:51 PM I'm not sure it can be rescinded, Alan, looking at SDC#2 on p. 294. It doesn't seem to apply to an incidental motion.Also, it cannot be reconsidered (SDC#8 p. 253)Thanks, but what about a motion to return to the normal rules of debate or a motion to limit debate to members only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 15, 2010 at 07:16 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 07:16 PM Thanks, but what about a motion to return to the normal rules of debate or a motion to limit debate to members only.Alan I'm lost in all this mess as to exactly what you're referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 15, 2010 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 07:35 PM Alan I'm lost in all this mess as to exactly what you're referring to.Well, I think suspension of a rule created by the adoption of a motion to suspend the rules (thus permitting an otherwise prohibited action) will require only a majority vote for its adoption since, if adopted, it will do nothing more than return the assembly to it's regular rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 15, 2010 at 07:46 PM Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 07:46 PM 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. Well, I think suspension of a rule created by the adoption of a motion to suspend the rules (thus permitting an otherwise prohibited action) will require only a majority vote for its adoption since, if adopted, it will do nothing more than return the assembly to it's regular rules.I think this is where some of the confusion lies. Does the motion to Suspend The Rules create (even oh so temporarily) a new rule that itself can be "suspended", thus restoring order from the chaos? Mr. Wynn seems to think not. Your post suggests you differ with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 15, 2010 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 08:21 PM I think this is where some of the confusion lies. Does the motion to Suspend The Rules create (even oh so temporarily) a new rule that itself can be "suspended", thus restoring order from the chaos? Mr. Wynn seems to think not. Your post suggests you differ with him.If an assembly agrees (properly) to suspend the rules to permit something to happen, I regard it as the equivalent of adopting a rule that that something can happen (but the rule thus adopted can be suspended by a majority vote, as previously noted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 15, 2010 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 08:42 PM Well, I think suspension of a rule created by the adoption of a motion to suspend the rules (thus permitting an otherwise prohibited action) will require only a majority vote for its adoption since, if adopted, it will do nothing more than return the assembly to it's regular rules.Well that certainly answers Alan's good question and an answer which I find quite illuminating. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 15, 2010 at 08:54 PM Author Report Share Posted July 15, 2010 at 08:54 PM Well that certainly answers Alan's good question and an answer which I find quite illuminating. Thanks Not to mention my question #3 in the original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:01 AM If an assembly agrees (properly) to suspend the rules to permit something to happen, I regard it as the equivalent of adopting a rule that that something can happen (but the rule thus adopted can be suspended by a majority vote, as previously noted).Would this "new rule" be suspended, or would it actually be eliminated by such a vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:02 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:02 AM David,Thanks for the "dead horse" graphic. I remain amazed by your digital prowess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 16, 2010 at 01:34 AM Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 01:34 AM David,Thanks for the "dead horse" graphic. I remain amazed by your digital prowess.Aw shucks. I can only say my digital prowess is inversely proportional to my grasp of the subtleties of RONR, which, as it (hopefully - my grasp that is) grows, will be manifested by my increasingly feeble attempts to improve upon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 16, 2010 at 11:05 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 11:05 AM Would this "new rule" be suspended, or would it actually be eliminated by such a vote?Well, rehashing what I think was alluded to earlier in this thread, if the suspension of the regular rules is accomplished incident to the adoption of an incidental main motion establishing a different rule for all or some portion of the session (which is what happens, for example, when standing rules are adopted for a convention), the new rule may be suspended for a particular purpose by a motion to suspend it (only a majority vote is required), but if the "suspension" is, in fact, equivalent to rescission of the rule, it will need to be treated accordingly, and a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) will be required (see, e.g., RONR, 10th ed., p. 601-602).On the other hand, if the original suspension is adopted for a limited purpose by the adoption of an incidental motion to Suspend the Rules (as in the usual case), "suspension" of the suspension will almost always be tantamount to rescission. Even if it is, I think that, in such a case, a motion to return to the regular rules is in order, and that only a majority vote will be required to do so (see HPL, p. 3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted July 16, 2010 at 11:48 AM Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 11:48 AM (see HPL, p. 3).Mr. Honemann, I'd like to do this (see HPL, p. 3, that is). I'm not sure what the H stands for (I get the PL), nor where I could find this reference material. Could you please advise?Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted July 16, 2010 at 11:57 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 11:57 AM Nothing substantive to contribute, but just wanted to say that this sure has turned out to be an interesting thread.I share Mr. Foulkes' curiosity about 'HPL'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:13 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:13 PM Nothing substantive to contribute, but just wanted to say that this sure has turned out to be an interesting thread.I share Mr. Foulkes' curiosity about 'HPL'...H. P. Lovecraft, of eldritch parliamentary horror stories. And you all wondered about the crocodiles, or why I wake up in night sweats after dreaming about suspending the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 12:15 PM Mr. Honemann, I'd like to do this (see HPL, p. 3, that is). I'm not sure what the H stands for (I get the PL), nor where I could find this reference material. Could you please advise?Thanks.HPL stands for Honemann on Parliamentary Law, and this rule is on page 3. This is because there are other rules on the first two pages, but I don't remember what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted July 16, 2010 at 04:15 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2010 at 04:15 PM HPL stands for Honemann on Parliamentary Law, and this rule is on page 3. This is because there are other rules on the first two pages, but I don't remember what they are.I recall from the old forum that pg. 2 had to do with the rule that a majority of the entire membership may amend or rescind a special rule of order being based upon a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.I've never seen a citation for pg. 1. I must not have been here long enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.