suspend the rules, twice

[Guest rigo]

Organization is in the need of funds. Have a program that can bring in new funds. Time is of the essence to decide on the merits of the new venture. Since the plan is not on the agenda, it falls under new business. Made a motion to suspend the rules and to place the new program as the next order of business. Motion was defeated. The meting was running long and the person with all the numbers and answers for the fund raiser has to leave, Since you can't make the same motion twice in the same session, how can one move up an item on the agemda?

[Guest Guest]

Don't suspend the rules.

Try to bring this point to the head before the agenda is adopted.

Don't suspend the rules but ask for items to be set aside to be considered at a leter point in the meeting.

Of course, you've explained during discussion that the person must leave. If that doesn't gain support and consideration of another's valuable time, well...good luck with anything your organization attempts.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Since the plan is not on the agenda, it falls under new business.

Made a motion to suspend the rules and to place the new program as the next order of business.

Motion was defeated.

The meeting was running long and the person with all the numbers and answers for the fund raiser has to leave.

Since you can't make the same motion twice in the same session, how can one move up an item on the agenda?

You question makes no sense.

You said:

1. "... Plan was not on the agenda." (Hence you must wait until the class of business "new business" is reached before you can make your motion regarding you fund-raising "plan".)

2. "How can one move up an item on the agenda?"

Thus my question to you.

Q. Why would you ask "How to move an item, which is not on the agenda, up on the agenda?"

Shouldn't you have asked, "How can item not yet on any agenda be entertained?"

Isn't that your goal?

[Rob Elsman]

By unanimous consent, the rules can still be suspended to take up the item of business out of its proper order, RONR (10th ed.), p. 254, ll. 19-22.

[Guest rigo]

By unanimous consent, the rules can still be suspended to take up the item of business out of its proper order, RONR (10th ed.), p. 254, ll. 19-22.

Thank you Ron you saved the day.

[Trina]

By unanimous consent, the rules can still be suspended to take up the item of business out of its proper order, RONR (10th ed.), p. 254, ll. 19-22.

Sure enough, p. 254 is pretty clear in describing same-session renewal (of the motion to suspend the rules) by unanimous consent. I wonder why the section on renewal (38) doesn't mention this special case. It just says 'the motion to Suspend the Rules for the same purpose cannot be renewed at the same meeting...' (p. 328). And, yes, I realize that the motion isn't (strictly speaking) being renewed if the chair brings it up as a unanimous consent issue, but that's kind of a fine point for the average organization member -- it sure looks like a second bite at the apple.

In general, can unanimous consent be used to bend the rules a bit, except in cases where RONR specifically says 'such and such cannot be done even by unanimous consent'? RONR p. 51 does say 'Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect.'

Or, does one need to read the fine print for every motion which cannot be reconsidered, to see if that specific motion has an exception like the one quoted by Mr. Elsman for Suspend the Rules?

[George Mervosh]

Sure enough, p. 254 is pretty clear in describing same-session renewal (of the motion to suspend the rules) by unanimous consent. I wonder why the section on renewal (38) doesn't mention this special case. It just says 'the motion to Suspend the Rules for the same purpose cannot be renewed at the same meeting...' (p. 328). And, yes, I realize that the motion isn't (strictly speaking) being renewed if the chair brings it up as a unanimous consent issue, but that's kind of a fine point for the average organization member -- it sure looks like a second bite at the apple.

In general, can unanimous consent be used to bend the rules a bit, except in cases where RONR specifically says 'such and such cannot be done even by unanimous consent'? RONR p. 51 does say 'Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect.'

Or, does one need to read the fine print for every motion which cannot be reconsidered, to see if that specific motion has an exception like the one quoted by Mr. Elsman for Suspend the Rules?

I don't intend to paruse the entire book for this, but IIRC RONR doesn't litter up each section with how the rules in that particular section can be suspended. It seems entirely consistent to me, Trina.

[J. J.]

Another option would to lay each question on the table individually.

[Josh Martin]

In general, can unanimous consent be used to bend the rules a bit, except in cases where RONR specifically says 'such and such cannot be done even by unanimous consent'? RONR p. 51 does say 'Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect.'

Pretty much.

[Gary c Tesser]

Sure enough, p. 254 is pretty clear in describing same-session renewal (of the motion to suspend the rules) by unanimous consent. I wonder why the section on renewal (38) doesn't mention this special case. It just says 'the motion to Suspend the Rules for the same purpose cannot be renewed at the same meeting...' (p. 328). And, yes, I realize that the motion isn't (strictly speaking) being renewed if the chair brings it up as a unanimous consent issue, but that's kind of a fine point for the average organization member -- it sure looks like a second bite at the apple.

In general, can unanimous consent be used to bend the rules a bit, except in cases where RONR specifically says 'such and such cannot be done even by unanimous consent'? RONR p. 51 does say 'Action in this manner is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect.'

Or, does one need to read the fine print for every motion which cannot be reconsidered, to see if that specific motion has an exception like the one quoted by Mr. Elsman for Suspend the Rules?

I'm a little dizzy at this point, but I suspect we're improperly mixing up a suspension of the rules to renew, and renewing some suspension of the rules.

[Trina]

I'm a little dizzy at this point, but I suspect we're improperly mixing up a suspension of the rules to renew, and renewing some suspension of the rules.

And here I was, enjoying the simplicity of Mr. Martin's two-word answer

[Dan Honemann]

And here I was, enjoying the simplicity of Mr. Martin's two-word answer

As well you should.

And as to " I wonder why the section on renewal (38) doesn't mention this special case", one hopes you found Mr. Mervosh's response equally enjoyable.