Objection to the consideration of a question

In parliamentary procedure, an objection to the consideration of a question is a motion that is adopted to prevent an original main motion from coming before the assembly. This motion is different from an objection to a unanimous consent request.

Objection to the consideration of a question (RONR)
ClassIncidental motion
In order when another has the floor?When another has been assigned the floor, until debate has begun or a subsidiary motion has been stated by the chair
Requires second?No
Debatable?No
May be reconsidered?Negative vote (sustaining objection) only
Amendable?No
Vote requiredTwo-thirds against consideration sustains objection

Explanation and use

If a member feels that an original main motion should not be considered, an objection to the consideration of a question could be made.[1] It is often used to prevent an embarrassing question from being introduced and debated in the assembly.

According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), this motion is not debatable and requires a two-thirds vote against consideration.[2] This objection may be applied only to an original main motion, that is, a motion that brings a new substantive issue before the assembly.[2] The objection may be raised only before debate has begun on the motion, as the purpose is to completely suppress debate on the motion.[2]

According to Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, the purpose of the objection to consideration is to bar from discussion or consideration "any matter that is considered irrelevant, contentious or unprofitable, or that, for any reason, is thought not advisable to discuss."[3]

This motion is different from an objection to a unanimous consent request.[2]

The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure does not have this motion and provides alternative motions for accomplishing the same purpose.[4]

Improper use of tabling a motion

Using the rules in RONR, a main motion is improperly killed by tabling it. In this case, before debate has begun, it would have been proper to make an objection to the consideration of the question.[5]

gollark: If it's, say, polluting a river, or launching an invasion against the commune near it, then people don't want that.
gollark: I mean, yes, morality is subjective, that's an orthogonal issue.
gollark: Are you not one of the communist-y types who supports a local-commune-based structure?
gollark: Or "how do we handle external costs at all".
gollark: Or "what do we do when an anarchocommune™️ (or whatever?) does bad things".

See also

References
  1. Robert, Henry M.; et al. (2011). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (11th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press. p. 267. ISBN 978-0-306-82020-5.
  2. Robert 2011, p. 268
  3. National Conference of State Legislatures (2000). Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, 2000 ed., p. 218
  4. Sturgis, Alice (2001). The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, 4th ed., p. 233–234
  5. Robert III, Henry M. (2011). "Frequently Asked Questions about RONR (Question 13)". The Official Robert's Rules of Order Web Site. The Robert's Rules Association. Retrieved 2016-02-19.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.