The Debate on Suspend the Rules

Is the motion to Suspend The Rules ever debatable?  In general, the answer is no, but there is one exception.  Suspend The Rules, when applied to rules of order, is never debatable, even when no other question is pending.  Suspend The Rules, when applied to standing rules, is always debatable and must be made as a main motion.

Suspending Rules of Order
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) states: "The incidental motion to Suspend the Rules . . . can be made at any time that no question is pending" (p. 252, l. 18-20).  This means that when no other question is pending, the motion to suspend a rule of order is an incidental motion.  Normally, we think that any motion made when there is no other question pending is a main motion -- either an original main motion or an incidental main motion.  This is not so for suspending a rule of order.  It is always an incidental motion, and as such is not debatable (p. 253, l. 5).  Thus, at any time this motion is made, whether business is pending or not, it is not debatable.

There are several motions that are not incidental main motions, even when made when no question is pending.  This is one of those unique procedural anomalies that makes sense only after much thought.  Suspend the Rules is such a motion, especially when applied to a rule of order.  Several of the others are listed at the end of this posting.

Debate would defeat the purpose of suspending a rule of order.  This motion is designed to quickly allow the assembly to do something that it cannot readily do under the rules.  If the rules had to be followed in a given situation, several motions might need to be considered before the desired action could be taken.  Some of those motions might be debatable motions.  If Suspend the Rules can be used to skip over debatable motions, then it is not reasonable for Suspend the Rules to itself be debatable.  Suspending a rule of order allows the body to conveniently skip procedure and debate.

Let us imagine that the motion to suspend a rule of order is debatable when no question is pending.  To prevent debate, the mover could say: "I move to suspend the rules and take up . . ., and on this I move the Previous Question" (p. 366, l. 1).  This is the method that is used to prevent debate on any main motion.  It would require not only two votes in succession, but two votes of two-thirds (first vote on Previous Question, then vote on Suspend the Rules).  However, the reason we use Suspend the Rules is so that procedural sequences like this can be avoided.  The motion to Suspend the Rules should cover any series of steps that requires at least a two-thirds vote to accomplish.

Even better, the mover could say: "I move to suspend all rules interfering with taking up . . ., including the rules on debate."  This phrase would secure just one vote of two-thirds.  A little addition to the wording renders the motion undebatable.  However, this goes against the proper form for stating this motion. "In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose" (p. 253, l. 23).

It would be of no value to debate the suspension of a rule of order.  A person wishing to avoid debate might prefer instead to move it while business is pending.  If the purpose is to take up another item of business, this could be more complicated, confusing, and disruptive to the assembly than doing so while no question is pending.  On the other hand, a person wishing to delay the proceedings would prefer to move to Suspend the Rules when no question is pending.  It would seem that in either case, debate on Suspend the Rules is detrimental.

Let's further examine incidental main motions.  They are debatable (p. 98, l. 24) and all subsidiary motions can be applied to them (p. 98, l. 12).  If Suspend the Rules can be an incidental main motion, then it can also be Postponed Indefinitely, Amended, Referred, or Postponed To a Certain Time.  These subsidiary motions would defeat the purpose of suspending a rule of order.  This is why RONR states that the only subsidiary motion that can be applied to Suspend the Rules is Lay On The Table (p. 252, l. 23).  Having reviewed the possibilities, it makes better sense that Suspend the Rules is always an incidental motion when applied to rules of order.

The Exception -- Suspending a Standing Rule
RONR states: "a standing rule can be suspended for the duration of a session; and a motion for such a suspension, made when no business is pending, is an incidental main motion" (p. 72, l. 2-5). This appears to contradict the argument above, however, we must remember that standing rules do not relate to parliamentary procedure and have the same effect as an ordinary act of the assembly (p. 18).  Thus, the suspension of a standing rule would not be related to a pending motion or series of motions, but to the operation of the meeting as a whole.  "Through an incidental motion adopted by a majority vote, a standing rule can be suspended for the duration of the current session" (p. 257, l. 6).  A motion to suspend a standing rule is an incidental main motion and can have any of the subsidiary motions applied to it.  Since adoption requires only a majority vote (there is no minority to protect), it should be debatable.

Incidental Motions (when no question is pending)
The other motions that are not incidental main motions, even when made when no question is pending, are listed below.

ADJOURN -- When there is already a provision for another meeting, the unqualified motion to Adjourn is not debatable even if it made while no question is pending (p. 226, l. 8).  Under these conditions, it is in effect a privileged motion, not an incidental main motion.

TAKE FROM THE TABLE can only be made when no other question is pending.  It differs from an incidental main motion in that its standard characteristics indicate it is not debatable (p. 290, l. 23), nor can any subsidiary motion be applied to it (p. 290, l. 4).  RONR classes this motion as one that brings a question again before the assembly not by its introduction, but by its adoption (p. 75, l. 4).  Since main motions introduce business (p. 95, l. 2) and Take From The Table does not directly introduce business, it is not an incidental main motion.  In the tinted pages, RONR differentiates between B -- motions that bring a question again before the assembly -- and M/B -- incidental main motions classed with motions that bring a question again before the assembly.  Examples of M/B motions are: Rescind, Repeal, Annul, and Amend Something Previously Adopted.  If Take From The Table could be an incidental main motion, it would be classed as an M/B, but it is classed as a B (tinted p. 26, #82).  (This presents a Shakespearean moment: M/B or not M/B, that is the question . . . but then I digress).

RECONSIDER, when made when no business is pending, is classed as a B motion and not as an M/B.  It is not an incidental main motion because it brings a question again before the assembly only through its adoption.  (I will conveniently skip the analysis here, as Reconsider is one of those motions that makes my head spin).

DISCHARGE A COMMITTEE can be classed as either a B or an M/B.  If the matter to be discharged from committee consideration was originally referred to the committee by a subsidiary motion, then the motion to Discharge is a B motion.  If the matter to be discharged was originally referred by a main motion, then it is an M/B motion (see tinted pages, p. 14, #32 and #33).

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY can be made either when business is pending or not pending.  It would be foolish to call it an incidental main motion even when made while no question is pending.  In RONR, Requests and Inquiries are not debatable (p. 281, l. 15), and no subsidiary motion can be applied to them (p. 281, l. 4).  Debating, Amending, Referring, or Postponing To a Certain Time would defeat the purpose of any request or inquiry, and they are in effect incidental motions, and never an incidental main motion.