Notes and Comments on Robert's Rules, Fourth Edition

Objection to the Consideration of a Question

80 Objection to the Consideration of a Question What is the purpose of an Objection to the Consideration of a Question? The purpose is to prevent the assembly from considering an original main motion. Recall that the purpose of the motion to call for the Previous Question is to close, not to prevent, debate. If a member wishes to prevent all discussion and consideration of a motion, objection to consideration should be used (391). What justifies preventing debate on an original main motion? The answer in Robert’s is that objection to consideration may be used when the assembly believes “it would be strongly undesirable for the motion even to come before the assembly” (267). Robert’s does make it clear when it should not be used: “If a main motion is outside the society’s objects as defined in the bylaws or constitution, or outside the announced purpose for which a mass meeting has been called; such [an improper] motion should be ruled out of order” (268).57 What limitations apply in objecting to consideration? First, Objection to the Consideration of a Question applies only to original main motions (103, 268). Second, the objection must be made before debate has begun on the original main motion. Does Objection to Consideration require a second? Robert’s says that no second is required (268). How does the chair present the motion to the assembly for a vote? The chair states, “There is an objection to the consideration of Ms. Y’s main motion. The question is: shall Ms. Y’s main motion be considered ? Those in favor of considering the main motion, please stand. Those opposed to considering the main motion, please stand.” This format, like the wording of an Appeal, appears to be in reverse, but for good reason. Any other form will probably confuse the assembly about what motion is being voted on. (Robert’s wording is slightly 81 Objection to the Consideration of a Question different and not as clear.) And remember, it takes a two-thirds vote in the negative for an Objection to the Consideration of a Question to be sustained (268). This form for putting the question is based on the principle that a member has a right to present a motion in a democratic society; thus, those who wish to deny this right are the objectors. The vote is whether to affirm this right or to deny this right. (See “Appeal,” page 74, for the same principle.) If an Objection to the Consideration of a Question is sustained (receives a two-thirds vote in the negative), for how long is the main motion dead? The main motion is dismissed for that session (269). Although it is commonplace to refer to objection to consideration as a motion to be adopted or rejected, Robert’s treats an objection to consideration as a request, and thus the proper announcement is whether the objection is or is not sustained. May a member use Point of Order in place of objection to consideration? Yes. Without any loss of the organization’s right to protect itself from contentious motions, Point of Order can do the job of objection to consideration. Robert’s says that object to consideration is similar to Point of Order (268). Also, placing the responsibility for the purpose of objection to consideration under Point of Order will prevent the misuse of such purpose by placing the decision “up front.” For whatever reason, any decision to rule a motion out of order is the responsibility of the chair—the leader. “It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions” (342), and the chair should be prepared to provide a specific and clear reason for the ruling. The same holds for any member who rises to a Point of Order to state that a motion should not be in order. One might think that dropping from a motion that requires a twothirds vote to a procedure (chair’s ruling or Point of Order subject to Appeal) that requires only a tie vote weakens the protection for the maker of the motion. Numerically it does; but by placing the decision up front, it is unlikely that any motion, unless clearly and overwhelmingly objectionable, will be ruled out of order. A myth prevails that chairs are tyrants who love to suppress the rights of the grassroots 82 Notes and Comments...