Talk:Call for the orders of the day

This article was nominated for deletion on March 8, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Vote Required for Call for the Orders of the Day

In the RONR motion box, I changed the vote required from "one-third" to "one-third plus one". While a call for the orders of the day is usually handled by the chairman simply acknowledging that the proper order has been strayed from and returning to the proper order, it is also possible to vote on whether to do this or not.

There are two different motions that can be used. The first, the vote on the "call for the orders of the day", usually made by the chairman, is should the assembly return to the proper order? If this motion receives a two-thirds or greater negative vote, it loses. The assembly continues with what they were doing. To return to the proper order requires a one-third plus one affirmative vote. (Not one-third, as a one-third affirmative vote is equivalent to a two-thirds negative vote --which would cause the motion to fail, therefore the vote required to pass is one-third plus one.)

The second motion available is a motion, usually made by a member, to continue (extend debate) on the current question. It is equivalent in effect to the above motion but the vote is opposite the vote on the that motion. It requires a two-thirds vote in the affirmative to pass; for this motion to fail, it would require a one-third plus one in the negative.

RONR does not state "one-third plus one" (as far a I can remember), but other parliamentary authorities, such as Longan's Rules do use this phrase. Parlirules (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recollection is correct; Robert's does not mention "one-third plus one" but states that when the chair presents the question of whether the assembly will proceed to the orders of the day, "two thirds in the negative are required to vote down this question and refuse to take up the orders of the day." As you say, in effect these are the same. Either way of stating it is kind of awkward. However, since Robert's chooses to state it in the negative, perhaps we should do the same. I don't feel strongly about it either way. Neutron (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Order of business

I plan to merge this article into Order of business. Ronruser (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it into Agenda (meeting) instead since I had merged Order of business into that article. Ronruser (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]