RES 68210 - Laserfiche WebLink

has coma to dispose of it with a vote. If the rules do not prescribe the manner of taking a vote in such a case it is in order to make a motion to determine the manner of taking the vote. If, again, some question may be raised as to the proper use of a motion to adjourn, even though this motion may have the highest order of precedence, it is proper to raise a point of order as to any question arising out of the motion and it is also in order to appeal from the decision on the point of order. ' Another matter upon which early manuals have laid great stress is whether a motion may be debatable, or whether a motion may be amended. These two questions can be answered very simply by the application of two principles. (1) Any motion which could have been properly stated in more than one form is subject to amendment. (2) Any motion which presents a basic item of business is subject to debate, while procedural motions relating only to the manner of consideration of the motion are not debatable. This latter rule is further explained by the further principle that an item of business, once finally disposed of, is not available for further debate or further consideration except upon a ~tion to reconsider, while a procedural motion can be again proposed whenever there is sufficient change in business or the parliamentary situation that a different decision on the motion could reasonably be made. In a body having legislative authority, questions may arise in closely disputed matters where procedural rule must be apDlied with rigor down to the last technical detail. Generally, however, parliamentary procedure is based on sound principles and the appli- cation of reason, particularly if it is tempered by experience, will meet most of the situations which may arise. It is, of course, highly desirable that the presiding officer (and also the clerk) have knowledge far beyond the rather rudimentary rules stated above. LEGISLATIVE MANUAL This brings us to a question of a legislative manual and here, perhaps, a caution should be introduced. Some legislative bodies have adopted Robert's Rules of Order. Mr. Robert was a very interesting and versatile person. He was an officer in the Army, in the Corps of Engineers, and had extensive experience as a member of Army boards and in religious and social organizations. He was impressed with the general lack of knowledge as to parliamentary law. He, therefore, prepared a set of rules which he proposed for adoption. These rules he called Robert's Rules of Order. Mr. Robert never contended that his rules conformed to parliamentary law, and particularly he did not claim that his rules were adapted to bodies with legislative powers. In Robert's introduction to his Rules of Order, after discussing the necessity for adoption of rules, he wrote: "These rules are prepared to meet partially this want in deliberative assemblies that are not legislative in character." -16-