Dilatory motions and tactics

Dilatory tactics or motions, in parliamentary procedure, are those tactics used to delay or obstruct business, annoy the deliberative assembly, or, in legislative procedure, to delay consideration of a subject. Some types of motions are suitable only for specific circumstances, and their use is otherwise absurd and dilatory. For instance, a motion to refer (commit) a resolution to a committee is dilatory if its object would be defeated by the delay in taking action. For example, the consideration of an invitation to a banquet that is happening this week cannot be sent to a committee to report at a meeting next week.

Reasonableness is often used as a criterion in deciding whether a motion is dilatory. A motion to appeal the ruling of the chair is dilatory if there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions about the ruling. Likewise, under common parliamentary law, a motion for a division of the assembly is dilatory if the results of the voice vote are already clear to any reasonable person. However, in the United States Congress, the constitutional right of a member to demand the yeas and nays cannot be denied even if the purpose is dilatory. The repetitive use of privileged motions can also be dilatory.

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR)

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition notes:

Since a motion to Adjourn may be voted down because a majority wish to hear one speech or take one vote, this motion must be renewable as soon as there has been any progress in business or even material progress in debate. But this privilege of renewal and the high rank the motion are sometimes abused to the annoyance of the assembly. The chair should therefore refuse to entertain a motion to Adjourn that is obviously made for obstructive purposes–for example, when a motion to Adjourn has just been voted down and nothing has taken place since to indicate that the assembly may now wish to close the meeting.

RONR notes that a presiding officer has a duty to protect the assembly from the abuse of parliamentary processes for dilatory purposes. If he becomes convinced that a member is using parliamentary processes for dilatory purposes, he can rule the motions out of order or refuse to recognize the member. But "[i]f the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt."

Legislature

In legislative bodies, dilatory motions can take the form of demanding quorum calls and votes at every opportunity. Another dilatory tactic is for members to not answer when their name is called during the quorum roll call. The problem of dilatory tactics in such bodies dates back to the beginnings of parliamentary procedure in England and the United States. Jefferson's Manual, for instance, only requires the Speaker to direct a bill to be read upon the desire of any member "if the request is really for information and not for delay." In the US Senate, there are no formal rules against dilatory tactics except under cloture. Between 1831 and 1900, dilatory votes to adjourn composed more than 10 percent of all Senate votes, and successfully delayed recognition of Louisiana's Reconstruction government until 1865. Binder notes that in the 46th United States Congress, motions to adjourn consumed 23 percent of all floor votes. Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed famously took countermeasures against dilatory tactics, such as ruling dilatory motions out of order, and was sustained by the house. Some legislatures impose quotas on dilatory motions. For instance, the Nova Scotia House of Assembly imposes a maximum of one motion to hoist, one motion to refer to a committee, and one reasoned amendment per reading. The Rules of the U.S. Congress as revised in 1911 declare that no dilatory motion shall be entertained by the Speaker.

Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure states:

Every legislative body has the inherent right to protect itself from dilatory motions. Whenever satisfied that a member is using parliamentary tactics to obstruct business, the presiding officer should not recognize the member, but should rule that person out of order. After having been sustained upon an appeal, the presiding officer need not entertain another appeal from the same member while it is evident that the member is trying to obstruct business.

Dilatory motions and tactics can also occur in judicial contexts, when one side uses them to slow down the trial.

Other meanings

The term "dilatory motion" does not always refer to an ill-intentioned motion. In Canada, "dilatory" motions refer to those "designed to dispose of the original question before the House either for the time being or permanently," and includes, for instance, motions to proceed to the orders of the day; postpone definitely; adjourn; and so on. Jeremy Bentham held that such types of dilatory motions are useful, noting, "Precipitation may arise from two causes: from ignorance, when a judgment is formed without the collection of all the information required—from passion, when there is not the necessary calm for considering the question in all its aspects."

See also

• Strategic use of motions