This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Parliamentary ProcedureWikipedia:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureTemplate:WikiProject Parliamentary ProcedureParliamentary Procedure articles
This page has been transwikiedtoWiktionary. The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either hereorhere (logs 1logs 2.) Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary. Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.
I would recommend against that. There is substantial room for expansion of both articles, to encompass the philosophy, history, uses, controversy, etc. surrounding these motions. The two motions are also used for quite different purposes, so it is best to keep them in separate articles to avoid confusion. 129.174.91.116 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Istrongly favor the merger . The parliamentary procedure pages are so disperse/broken-up that they begin to lose their value in providing information. Combining a few pages might be beneficial and editors could then concentrate on providing real value in the Parliamentary Procedure category. Quantity of pages may not be in the best interest of Wikipedia users at the moment. Let's combine as many pages where ever it makes a little sense and concentrate on quality. I believe the category will grow faster if we have a good nucleus of quality articles. Instead of creating a new page for every tidbit in RONR, let's get a better game plan. I know that RONR is tops in the US, but this category is Parliamentary Procedure not Robert's Procedure. The motion "Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes" is of almost no use or value in the real world - although I think it was a creative effort by Robert and I understand why he invented it. Someday, I hope to actually use it. Oops...time to get off the soapbox. Parlirules (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sentence now in the article that says: "Under RONR, Demeter, and Riddick, the making of the motion to reconsider suspends all action that depends on the result of the vote proposed to be reconsidered." Isn't this true under TSC as well? In other words, under all authorities? I realize that under TSC the suspension is likely to last for a shorter amount of time because the motion for reconsideration seems to come up for a vote automatically when no other business is pending, rather than waiting until someone calls it up. But the suspension still exists, doesn't it? Neutron (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it also says that under TSC, but the "suspension" is almost meaningless. If we were to include TSC in the same sentence as those other three it would be misleading. This is because TSC recognizes that reconsider suspends all actions **but** then immediately neutralizes that effect almost completely by requiring the reconsider motion to be decided ASAP. If there is pending business when the reconsider motion is made, yes there is a short period where action is suspended, until the current business is completed. If reconsidered is moved when no business is pending, there is only the short period between when the reconsider motion is made, during the limited debate, up until the vote is taken - but I don't think that is significant enough to call it a suspension.
Interesting, Kerr and King follow TSC closely in their treatment of reconsideration, but, in addition, don't allow the motion to be made when there is a substantive motion pending. Therefore, they eliminate that period of "suspension" that occurs until the current business is finished that TSC still allows. So, under Kerr and King, there is really no suspension possible.
Reconsideration under RONR, etc. allows opposing forces to gather new information, new support etc. by moving reconsideration and preventing the motion's action from being carried out until they have some time. Until the reconsideration motion is pulled up, they can use that time to get their act together. TSC doesn't recognize that as a valuable enough opportunity compared to what TSC considers negative about the motion - that a few people can hold up the will of the assembly.
Sometimes the writing in TSC is not definitive - one of the problems is that it is a 'reaction' to Robert. It has to contrast itself with Robert to make its point and sometimes it does this by setting up Robert and attacking the old-fashion viewpoint of Robert. That is why you get such writing as under Reconsideration in TSC, where first it talks about the "suspension of action", which TSC agrees is as a natural consequence of the motion to reconsider, but then TSC proposes its solution to that (require debate/vote ASAP) to neutralize what TSC considers a problem. Therefore one can find in TSC the notion that "Reconsider suspends action" but upon reading the whole section, so what? There is (almost) no time for that suspension!
Result: TSC does not allow the suspension of all action when reconsideration is moved, not because it prohibits that suspension, but because it takes away the opportunity to suspend any action - by requiring an (almost) immediate resolution. Nifty?
I just want to make sure I follow this. I understand that TSC (which I have never actually "operated" under, but I have read it) provides for the motion for reconsider to become pending as soon as there is no other business pending. However, once the motion for reconsideration is stated by the chair as pending, isn't the assembly permitted to postpone it to to a certain time? Either later in that meeting, or at the next meeting? And if that occurs, doesn't the suspension have some meaning? Or is this too far-fetched a scenario? It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility. Neutron (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cannot postpone reconsider
TSC is not organized to see a whole motion at once (because unlike RONR, it is suppose to be a readable book, not necessarily a reference book.) See page 29 where TSC states "Restorative main motions can have no other motions applied to them..." with some exceptions related to limiting debate. Therefore you cannot postpone a motion to reconsider. Page 40 says the motion to Reconsider is to be considered immediately (unless other business is pending, and then it is to be considered immediately after that.) [Does RONR every use the word immediately in that context?] To really understand TSC you have to keep in the mind the intent of what Sturgis was trying to do. That's the secret. Don't read individual sentences in TSC and then try to make sense of them, you'll only get confused. Understand Sturgis' philosophy first and then you will understand why TSC states what it does, and doesn't state other things at all. By-the-way, many of things in the 4th edition, including dropping some motions, where not done that way in Sturgis' original editions -- but they were done by the AIP revision committee as an extension of what she was trying to do. Parlirules (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
