Re: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group Motion
Sounds like there was some interesting discussion on the call!
I think that we have to make a more general decision here, before we can
craft some text. Is a motion, once made and seconded, the property of
the mover? Robert's Rules say no. Once a motion is made and seconded,
the motion belongs to the body. If a motion to amend is made and
adopted that changes the original motion to one the mover of that
original motion finds objectionable, the mover no longer has the right
to remove the motion from consideration.
The only way to change a motion brought to the EC on behalf of a WG is
through a valid amendment. Once the motion is amended, the WG chair has
no right to withdraw it. All the WG chair can do is argue against the
amended motion, if it is now changed in such a way that the chair
believes the WG would no longer support it.
This is the same right all EC members have with respect to motions they
find undesirable. Should the mover of any motion that is modified to
become undesirable to them have the right to remove the modified motion
from consideration? I think not. Does it matter how a motion came to
be made on the floor of an EC meeting? I think not.
This is the trouble that comes up when we cast aside well known, tested
methods for conducting meetings, as we have with RROR.
I would say that the correct revision to the P&P would be to delete the
section, in its entirety.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
On Behalf Of Pat Thaler
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 1:13 PM
Subject: [802SEC] Ambiguity on Deferring action on a Working Group
At the P&P ballot resolution meeting, we found that the text in 184.108.40.206
item 8 regarding deferral of action on a Working Group's motion is
ambiguous. We felt we needed a wider discussion on what the text should
mean before we could write acceptable text. Since this is rather long, I
will put the text for my suggested resolution in second message so
responders can focus on that.
220.127.116.11 item 8 in our current P&P
If the Executive Committee so modifies a Working Group's motion that the
Working Group Chair believes the Working Group membership may no longer
support the revised motion then the Working Group should be given the
opportunity to reconsider what action it wishes to take and present it
to the Executive Committee at the next Executive Committee meeting. This
action can be accomplished by a Privileged Non-debatable "Request To
Defer Action" made by the affected Working Group Chair which will
automatically cause all action on the motion to be deferred until the
end of the next regular Executive Committee meeting.
Some of the text (e.g. "Privileged Non-debatable "Request") seems to
imply that this is describing a motion made by the Working Group Chair
which needs an affirmative vote by the EC to take effect.
Some of the text (e.g. "the Working Group should be given the
opportunity to reconsider..." and "will automaticallly cause all action
on the motion to be deferred") seems to imply that this is describing a
unilateral action that the Working Group Chair can make to withdraw the
In the former case, this is describing a motion to postpone (i.e. a
motion to table) by the Working Group Chair and a special rule isn't
required. (A motion to postpone isn't privileged but the use of
privileged here is incorrect; see below.) One could have a bit of
informative text suggesting a motion to postpone but that seems entirely
unnecessary to me.
In the latter case, the text should make the unilateral nature of the
action clear. It was also pointed out that there is no definition of a
"working group's motion". The text for this will be in the other email.
Background: A couple of us on the call believe that the latter is what
was intended when the text was originally written. A specific concern
that caused the text to be written was amendment of a PAR by the
Executive Committee. We wanted to give the chair the ability to take the
PAR back to the Working Group for action if the PAR was altered to the
point that the Working Group chair was concerned that the Working Group
might not be willing to pursue the work.
The use of "Privileged" here is incorrect in any case. In parlimentary
procedure, a "privileged" only applies to motions that don't relate to
the motion currently being cosidered but take precedence over it despite
that. A motion about the current motion is therefore never a privileged
motion - it doesn't need privilege.
P.S. This text is not relevant to the topic of 18.104.22.168 which is
generally about limiting the length of EC meetings. It should be moved
someplace else - perhaps with the voting rules.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector.
This list is maintained by Listserv.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.