Debate or not to debate.

[Lori Lukinuk]

Could someone please explain to me a logical way to determine if a motion is debatable and if it is not? What makes a motion debatable or not? I have read pg's 373-386, but find it confusing.

[hmtcastle]

Could someone please explain to me a logical way to determine if a motion is debatable and if it is not? What makes a motion debatable or not? I have read pg's 373-386, but find it confusing.

I'm not sure the pages you cited are especially relevant and I'm not sure there's a rule of thumb as to which types of motions are debatable and which are not (but stay tuned). I think your best bet is to refer to the tinted pages at the end of the book.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Could someone please explain to me a logical way to determine if a motion is debatable and if it is not?

What makes a motion debatable or not?

I have read pg's 373-386, but find it confusing.

To remember the debate-ability of the most used motions, use this mnemonic:

"TOP EIGHT, NO DEBATE."

This refers to the ranked motions: subsidiary (7) plus privileged (5), i.e., the 12 ranked motions.

.

.

.

.

.

.

This implies that "The lower four is what debate is for!"

(My new contribution to the World of Mnemonics.)

I have no nifty mnemonic for the other classes' debatability.

[Rob Elsman]

Could someone please explain to me a logical way to determine if a motion is debatable and if it is not? What makes a motion debatable or not? I have read pg's 373-386, but find it confusing.

Motions are debatable unless, by their nature, business would be unnecessarily delayed by debate.

[hmtcastle]

Motions are debatable unless, by their nature, business would be unnecessarily delayed by debate.

So what is it in their nature that would make a motion unnecessarily delayed by debate?

Or are you simply saying that motions are debatable unless they're not?

[David A Foulkes]

Could someone please explain to me a logical way to determine if a motion is debatable and if it is not? What makes a motion debatable or not? I have read pg's 373-386, but find it confusing.

I took this as a trick question. A logical way?

[Rob Elsman]

So what is it in their nature that would make a motion unnecessarily delayed by debate?

Or are you simply saying that motions are debatable unless they're not?

I am not simply saying that motions are debatable unless they're not.

[David A Foulkes]

Could someone please explain to me a logical way to determine if a motion is debatable and if it is not? What makes a motion debatable or not? I have read pg's 373-386, but find it confusing.

Lori, I think your question is tantamount to asking if there is a logical way to determine if a noun is masculine or feminine in French. There are some indicators that would allow you to make a very educated guess, but sometimes you'd be wrong. Ultimately, you just have to know, if you want to be sure 100% of the time. The tinted pages, as well as the other 700 +- will tell you. Read them, make notes, study, and then re-read and look for the exceptions to the "rules." Logic will fail you now and then in this regard.

[Lori Lukinuk]

Lori, I think your question is tantamount to asking if there is a logical way to determine if a noun is masculine or feminine in French. There are some indicators that would allow you to make a very educated guess, but sometimes you'd be wrong. Ultimately, you just have to know, if you want to be sure 100% of the time. The tinted pages, as well as the other 700 +- will tell you. Read them, make notes, study, and then re-read and look for the exceptions to the "rules." Logic will fail you now and then in this regard.

Thanks David...this is the best answer given...at least in my opinion. I have the ranked motions figured out, the others when conventions or other exceptions come in to play are a little more difficult. Each time I read through RONR I figure out a little more. That's the best advice given.

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks David...this is the best answer given...at least in my opinion. I have the ranked motions figured out, the others when conventions or other exceptions come in to play are a little more difficult. Each time I read through RONR I figure out a little more. That's the best advice given.

Welcome to the club!

[Shmuel Gerber]

Thanks David...this is the best answer given...at least in my opinion. I have the ranked motions figured out, the others when conventions or other exceptions come in to play are a little more difficult. Each time I read through RONR I figure out a little more. That's the best advice given.

I'm not sure what you mean by "when conventions or other exceptions come in to play."

If you have the ranked motions figured out, then all else you need to know (in regard to this one question of yours) is what the book says on p.386, lines 6-36.

And that the chair can submit a Point of Order to the judgment of the assembly, in which case it becomes debatable whenever an appeal would be.

And that a proviso is debatable.

And I think that's about it. :-)

[Lori Lukinuk]

I'm not sure what you mean by "when conventions or other exceptions come in to play."

If you have the ranked motions figured out, then all else you need to know (in regard to this one question of yours) is what the book says on p.386, lines 6-36.

And that the chair can submit a Point of Order to the judgment of the assembly, in which case it becomes debatable whenever an appeal would be.

And that a proviso is debatable.

And I think that's about it. :-)

One example that confuses me...and perhaps it is because I haven't memorized RORN as of yet, but to suspend rules clearly identifiable as in the nartur of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws and do not protect a minority of less than one-third requires a two-thirds vote without debate. I'll re-read RONR and will figure it out but right now I don't know why there would be no debate. I get the two-thirds requirement.

[George Mervosh]

One example that confuses me...and perhaps it is because I haven't memorized RORN as of yet, but to suspend rules clearly identifiable as in the nartur of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws and do not protect a minority of less than one-third requires a two-thirds vote without debate. I'll re-read RONR and will figure it out but right now I don't know why there would be no debate. I get the two-thirds requirement.

Read RONR, p. 66, line 29 to line 67, line 4 (although a good read of p. 66ff would be better). Because of their need to be decided immediately before business can proceed, they (incidental motions) are typically not debatable.

In stark contrast to popular beliefs, RONR's rules are designed to keep things moving along when it's necessary to do so. With incidental motions, it's almost always necessary to do so.

[hmtcastle]

In stark contrast to popular beliefs, RONR's rules are designed to keep things moving along when it's necessary to do so. With incidental motions, it's almost always necessary to do so.

And I suppose that a motion to suspend the rule that says a particular motion is not debatable is, itself, not debatable (not to mention that scourge of scourges, dilatory).

Which, I think, comes down to saying that some rules are not debatable because RONR says they're not. You buy the book; you adopt the book; you play by the rules in the book. It's not for parliamentarians to reason why. Theirs is but to advise. And sigh.

[Rob Elsman]

And I suppose that a motion to suspend the rule that says a particular motion is not debatable is, itself, not debatable (not to mention that scourge of scourges, dilatory).

Which, I think, comes down to saying that some rules are not debatable because RONR says they're not. You buy the book; you adopt the book; you play by the rules in the book. It's not for parliamentarians to reason why. Theirs is but to advise. And sigh.

I think there may be some confusion on this forum between an incidental main motion and an incidental motion. An incidental main motion that has the effect of suspending the rules is debatable; an incidental motion to suspend the rules is undebatable.

An example of an incidental main motion that has the effect of suspending the rules is a rule adopted at the beginning of a meeting "...that appeals from the ruling of the chair arising from the assignment of the floor shall be decided without debate." This motion suspends the rules and requires a two-thirds vote, but it is actually an incidental main motion made when no other question is pending.

[Shmuel Gerber]

One example that confuses me...and perhaps it is because I haven't memorized RORN as of yet, but to suspend rules clearly identifiable as in the nartur of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws and do not protect a minority of less than one-third requires a two-thirds vote without debate. I'll re-read RONR and will figure it out but right now I don't know why there would be no debate. I get the two-thirds requirement.

Lori,

Where are you quoting from, and why do you view this as a special case? In general any incidental motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable, in accordance with the summary stated on page 386 regarding incidental motions.

[Lori Lukinuk]

Lori,

Where are you quoting from, and why do you view this as a special case? In general any incidental motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable, in accordance with the summary stated on page 386 regarding incidental motions.

I don't think it is a special case. Outside of the rules for subsidiary and privileged motions and debate, the incidental motions do tend to confuse me. I'm studying for the RP exam and the question and answer is from there and I find those types of questions the hardest. I think I may just stay away from this site for awhile until after the exam. I find certain folks tend to cause more confusion than clarification and clarity. All well intended responses, I'm sure, but still cause confusion. I'll figure it out. As I said in an earlier post, each time I read RONR certain points become more clear.

[Tim Wynn]

I'm studying for the RP exam and the question and answer is from there and I find those types of questions the hardest.

Which question number?

[Lori Lukinuk]

Which question number?

PART V - Question #18

[Tim Wynn]

PART V - Question #18

That question is actually written wrong in the RP Study Guide, but I don't think that error is what's confusing you.

The point to know is that rules of order can be suspended (with a few exceptions), and the fact that they're contained in the bylaws doesn't protect them from suspension. Suspending the Rules requires a two-thirds vote and it is not debatable.

The part about, "and that do not protect a minority of less than one third of those voting" can be omitted. (It should read, "one third or less," anyway.)

[Shmuel Gerber]

PART V - Question #18

That question reads as follows:

Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws and that do not protect a minority of less than one-third of those voting can be suspended by a:

A. ...

B. ...

C. two-thirds vote without debate

D. two-thirds vote with debate.

The answer NAP is looking for is C. However, as Rob Elsman has pointed out, there is not actually enough information given to know whether debate is permitted on the motion that would suspend such a rule, because there is no clue as to whether it is being made as an incidental motion.

[Lori Lukinuk]

That question is actually written wrong in the RP Study Guide, but I don't think that error is what's confusing you.

The point to know is that rules of order can be suspended (with a few exceptions), and the fact that they're contained in the bylaws doesn't protect them from suspension. Suspending the Rules requires a two-thirds vote and it is not debatable.

The part about, "and that do not protect a minority of less than one third of those voting" can be omitted. (It should read, "one third or less," anyway.)

The suspension part I am clear on. What I am not clear on is why is it not debatable? An earlier answer states that incidental motions need to be decided immediately and therefore are not debatable. That makes sense to me but I still see a grey area and need to make it all make sense. "Gray" or "grey"....hmmm that is the Canadian in me.

[George Mervosh]

The suspension part I am clear on. What I am not clear on is why is it not debatable? An earlier answer states that incidental motions need to be decided immediately and therefore are not debatable. That makes sense to me but I still see a grey area and need to make it all make sense. "Gray" or "grey"....hmmm that is the Canadian in me.

Since you understand incidental motions are not ordinarily debatable, what is left that's gre{a}y?

[Lori Lukinuk]

That question reads as follows:

The answer NAP is looking for is C. However, as Rob Elsman has pointed out, there is not actually enough information given to know whether debate is permitted on the motion that would suspend such a rule, because there is no clue as to whether it is being made as an incidental motion.

Well.....that may be why I cannot wrap my logical mind around this.