Can you put a motion on temporary hold?

[Guest Guest_Jason]

Alright, an author has just explained his proposed legislation and the chair then asks if there are any "questions for the author". Lets say 6 senators raise their placard in response. There are always a few senators who are impatient and looking to get out of the meeting as early as possible (unfortunately). If the first senator the floor recognized immediately, and impatiently, requested a motion for unanimous consent, may the chair request a "hold" or temporary suspension on his motion? It seems to me the other 5 senators that also raised their placards may have had questions for the author and should have the right to have them answered first. And if the chair can make such a request for a temporary hold on the motion to recognize other members, what would his/her appropriate language be? If not, would one of the senators that had a question have to object to the motion and therefore enter debate?

[hmtcastle]

may the chair request a "hold" or temporary suspension on his motion?

No.

And the words "author", "senator", and "placard" do not appear in the current edition of RONR.

[Chris Harrison]

Alright, an author has just explained his proposed legislation and the chair then asks if there are any "questions for the author". Lets say 6 senators raise their placard in response. There are always a few senators who are impatient and looking to get out of the meeting as early as possible (unfortunately). If the first senator the floor recognized immediately, and impatiently, requested a motion for unanimous consent, may the chair request a "hold" or temporary suspension on his motion? It seems to me the other 5 senators that also raised their placards may have had questions for the author and should have the right to have them answered first. And if the chair can make such a request for a temporary hold on the motion to recognize other members, what would his/her appropriate language be? If not, would one of the senators that had a question have to object to the motion and therefore enter debate?

I am not sure what you mean by requesting "a motion for unanimous consent". If you mean that the Senator wanted all debate and other applicable motions to stop and for a vote to be taken on the original motion right then (which is called moving the Previous Question) it is proper for the first speaker to move the Previous Question because the assembly will decide if they have heard enough (by a 2/3 vote).

[Guest Guest_Jason]

I'm am unsure if it is in our bylaws, but it is common practice in our meetings to allow someone to motion for "unanimous consent". If it is seconded and there are no objections, then the legislation immediately passes. Only when there is an objection to that motion do we then "enter debate" and subsequently have a placard vote. I'd say about half of our legislation passes in this manner and about half goes through the voting process.

I guess the more appropriate way to word it as follows: If multiple members request the floor at one time (which is by raising their numbered placard in our meetings), and the first member recognized to have the floor makes a motion; is there anyway to allow the other members to also have their time on the floor before the first member's motion is upheld?

[Chris Harrison]

I guess the more appropriate way to word it as follows: If multiple members request the floor at one time (which is by raising their numbered placard in our meetings), and the first member recognized to have the floor makes a motion; is there anyway to allow the other members to also have their time on the floor before the first member's motion is upheld?

Why wouldn't someone just object which would then allow debate to continue?

[hmtcastle]

I'm am unsure if it is in our bylaws . . .

Then perhaps you might want to take another look at them?

If multiple members request the floor at one time (which is by raising their numbered placard in our meetings), and the first member recognized to have the floor makes a motion; is there anyway to allow the other members to also have their time on the floor before the first member's motion is upheld?

All members should have a chance to speak for up to ten minutes . . . twice.

Unanimous consent is fine but if a dozen members are raising their placards it would seem obvious that they want to be heard.

[Guest Guest_Jason]

All members should have a chance to speak for up to ten minutes . . . twice.

Unanimous consent is fine but if a dozen members are raising their placards it would seem obvious that they want to be heard.

That is the way I feel as well. So what I was wondering was when the first person to be recognized on the floor makes a motion that would prevent the others from being heard, what is the appropriate language to use to request that he wait until the others have a chance to speak as well?

[Guest Guest_Jason]

Why wouldn't someone just object which would then allow debate to continue?

It is the original entering of the debate that most members typically try to avoid. This is a fairly large assembly with ~100 voting members. To officially enter debate means there has to be a vote which is quite time consuming. If every piece of legislation goes to full vote than a 1-hour meeting can very quickly turn into a 3-hour meeting.

Typically, we have the author that wrote the legislation provide a quick explanation of the proposal. Then the chair ask if there are any questions for the author. After questions, a member typically motions for "unanimous consent" with the hope to move on to the next bill. If it is seconded, and no objections it passes. If someone objects, only then do we enter debate and then have to go to full vote. However, when a meeting is already starting to go long, and people start to get impatient, a member will occasionally prematurely motion for unanimous consent before other members have had a chance to have the floor to ask questions to the author. These other members with questions may not be looking to enter a full debate and vote, but simply want further explanation on a part of the bill. To object would signify a vote against the bill, and that may not be their position.

[Josh Martin]

It is the original entering of the debate that most members typically try to avoid. This is a fairly large assembly with ~100 voting members. To officially enter debate means there has to be a vote which is quite time consuming. If every piece of legislation goes to full vote than a 1-hour meeting can very quickly turn into a 3-hour meeting.

Typically, we have the author that wrote the legislation provide a quick explanation of the proposal. Then the chair ask if there are any questions for the author. After questions, a member typically motions for "unanimous consent" with the hope to move on to the next bill. If it is seconded, and no objections it passes. If someone objects, only then do we enter debate and then have to go to full vote. However, when a meeting is already starting to go long, and people start to get impatient, a member will occasionally prematurely motion for unanimous consent before other members have had a chance to have the floor to ask questions to the author. These other members with questions may not be looking to enter a full debate and vote, but simply want further explanation on a part of the bill. To object would signify a vote against the bill, and that may not be their position.

Your members appear to be under a few mistaken impressions (at least as far as RONR is concerned):

-That there is some sort of "question period" which is separate from debate. This is not the case. The questions would be asked during debate.

-That the debate and vote has to be "all or nothing" - that is, that the members can ask a few questions and go to unanimous consent, or they have to have a full debate and vote. This is not the case. The Previous Question may be moved at any time during the debate, which requires a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent and brings the motion to an immediate vote. Thus, a member could object, and after members feel the issue is fully fleshed out, someone may move the previous question. If the motion for the previous question is defeated (perhaps because it is made prematurely), it may be renewed after significant progress in debate. Additionally, most motions should be voted on by voice vote, which will drastically save time. Only when the voice vote is inconclusive would it be necessary to use another form of voting.

-That an objection to unanimous consent signifies a vote against the motion in question. This is not the case. An objection to unanimous consent, particularly in this case, may simply mean that the member wishes to hear further discussion on the issue.

Of course, it appears that your assembly may have special rules of order on this matter, and if that is the case, interpreting those rules is up to the assembly. As far as the rules of RONR are concerned, however, judicious use of the Previous Question and the procedure for a voice vote should solve the problems you have mentioned.

[Trina]

....

when a meeting is already starting to go long, and people start to get impatient, a member will occasionally prematurely motion for unanimous consent before other members have had a chance to have the floor to ask questions to the author. These other members with questions may not be looking to enter a full debate and vote, but simply want further explanation on a part of the bill. To object would signify a vote against the bill, and that may not be their position.

....

The Previous Question may be moved at any time during the debate, which requires a 2/3 vote or unanimous consent and brings the motion to an immediate vote. Thus, a member could object, and after members feel the issue is fully fleshed out, someone may move the previous question. If the motion for the previous question is defeated (perhaps because it is made prematurely), it may be renewed after significant progress in debate....

-That an objection to unanimous consent signifies a vote against the motion in question. This is not the case. An objection to unanimous consent, particularly in this case, may simply mean that the member wishes to hear further discussion on the issue

....

And, probably just to belabor the obvious in Mr. Martin's response, your assembly seems to be in the habit of collapsing two rounds of voting into one, resulting in the problem of members thinking that an objection to unanimous consent is the same as objection to the bill itself.

Under RONR, the first round is the vote on the motion for the Previous Question. That is, the members are voting ONLY on whether to close debate and move toward a vote -- the members' votes on the Previous Question do NOT express any opinion, one way or the other, on the merits of the pending motion ('bill', in your assembly). If the assembly votes in favor of the motion for the Previous Question, then the second round of voting is the actual vote on the motion (bill).

If your own rules actually dictate the procedure you are currently following, perhaps those rules need to be amended in order to address the problem you are describing.