IMMEDIATE TRANSMITTAL ----- 18-1.1
The proponents argued that the deputy speaker's ruling was correct. While the rule was
not as clear as it could be, a fair and common-sense reading of it required that only the
immediate transmittal motion need be made in the final three days and that no suspension of the
rules was required.
On a roll call vote, the appeal failed.
The member renewed his motion for immediate transmittal of the three bills to the
Senate. Another member asked if the motion was debatable.
The deputy speaker ruled that it was.
After some debate on the motion to transmit, a member moved to divide the question. He
proposed to take a separate vote on the immediate transmittal of one of the bills.
In the absence of objection, the deputy speaker ruled the issue would be divided and
stated the first question would be immediate transmittal of HB 5839.
A member moved to reconsider HB 5839.
The deputy speaker ruled the motion to reconsider out of order while the question of
immediate transmittal was pending.
The member raised a point of order that a motion to reconsider takes precedence over a
motion for immediate transmittal (
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken. House Rules take precedence
on this issue and HR 28 lists only nine motions that may be made when a
question is under debate. The motion to reconsider is not one of them.
The member moved that the House adjourn until 11 A.M. on Tuesday. Another member
stated that the motion to adjourn was not debatable. A third member raised a point of parliamentary
inquiry whether a motion to adjourn to a particular time was debatable.
The deputy speaker ruled that, while another question is pending, a motion to
adjourn was in order but was not debatable.
On a roll call vote, the motion to adjourn failed.
The majority leader withdrew his motion for immediate transmittal.
The deputy speaker ruled that, since the question had been divided, the withdrawal
applied only to HB 5836.
The majority leader then moved to reconsider HB 5836. After debate, the motion was
rejected on a roll call vote. Since the rejection of the motion to reconsider constituted final action
on the bill, the majority leader then moved immediate transmittal under HR 11.
A member raised a point of order that the motion was improperly stated unless the
majority leader included the bill or file number in his motion.
The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken.
The motion for immediate transmittal of HB 5836 was adopted without objection. The
House then followed the same procedure (withdraw the original immediate transmittal motion,
move to reconsider, reject the motion to reconsider on a roll call vote, and renew and adopt the
motion for immediate transmittal) on each of the other two bills.
Coleman, May 2, 1994.
SECTION 19 -- LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
MATTER SUBJECT OF PENDING LAWSUIT (
Formerly HP 446
House amendment "A," which replaced the entire file copy, validated the State Building
Code as adopted on April 15, 1987. In explaining the amendment, the proponent described a
pending lawsuit by the Home Builders' Association challenging the notice given on new building
code regulations. A member raised a point of order that House "A" was not properly before the
House because it was a matter currently in litigation.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. It is up to the House to decide whether
its action would be an undue interference with a pending case. Any member can use the
pending case to argue that the amendment should be defeated but it was not sufficient
reason to rule it out of order. There are always court cases in progress which deal with
actions of the General Assembly and it is not reasonable to suppose that the General
Assembly is thereby prevented from acting on matters under its jurisdiction. Such a
narrow view of its role would paralyze the Assembly.
Stolberg, June 3, 1987.
SECTION 20 -- LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONERS' POWERS;
RULES, SUSPENSION OF (
Formerly HP 447
The speaker ruled a bill out of order because the Appropriations Committee had made
substantive changes in it, a practice prohibited by the rules at that time. A member rose to a point
of inquiry as to whether the bill could be referred to the Legislative Commissioners' Office to be
redrafted in an acceptable form.
The speaker ruled referral to LCO not proper because LCO has no power to delete
or change provisions of a bill reported by a committee.
The member moved to suspend the rules to send the bill to LCO for redrafting to include
only those modifications that the Appropriations Committee was authorized to make, and then
return it to the House. A member raised a point of order that the motion to suspend the rules was
not proper because, the bill having been ruled out of order, there was no matter before the House
susceptible to the pending motion or to any other motion.
The speaker ruled the point well taken and the motion to suspend the rules out of
order. He advised the member making the motion that the proper course would be to
appeal the speaker's ruling on the bill.
Abate, May 21, 1979.
AUTHORITY OF TO CORRECT TERMINOLOGY
During debate of a strike-all amendment concerning municipal police officers and
firefighters, a member questioned existing language, which referenced "policemen" and
"firemen" and had not been amended to reflect the more modern terminology of "police officers"
LEGISLATIVE COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE ----- 20-1.2
The member made a parliamentary inquiry whether LCO could make the change to
gender neutral language as part of its codification process without a specific amendment adopted
by the House.
The deputy speaker stated it was her opinion that this was not a fix LCO can simply
Ritter, May 9, 2013.
SECTION 21 -- LOBBYING MATERIAL
LOBBYING MATERIAL DISTRIBUTED IN HOUSE CHAMBER
Formerly HP 449
A member raised a point of order that lobbying material was being passed out in chamber
by General Assembly employees contrary to the rules.
The deputy speaker ruled the point not well taken as he had given a member
permission to distribute the material.
Coatsworth, April 11, 1979.
SECTION 22 -- MOTIONS
22-1. GENERALLY; ORDER AND PRECEDENCE OF
MOTION FOR DIVISION AND MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Formerly HP 489
A member raised a point of order that a motion to reconsider could not be entertained
since an earlier motion for division had not yet been decided.
The speaker ruled that a motion pending before the body must be disposed of prior
to another's being entertained.
MOTION TO SUSPEND RULES AND MOTION TO PASS
Formerly HP 498
A member moved to pass a bill temporarily. Another member moved to suspend the rules
to consider the bill without a fiscal note.
The speaker ruled that the motion to pass temporarily took precedence over the
motion to suspend the rules.
Abate, May 24, 1979.
MOTIONS - ORDER AND PRECEDENCE OF -----
MOTION TO REFER AND MOTION TO PASS RETAIN
Formerly HP 494
A member moved to refer a bill to the Environment Committee. A second member
moved to pass retain the bill.
The speaker ruled that the motion to refer took precedence over the motion to pass
There was debate on the motion to refer. The second member renewed his motion to pass
retain the bill.
The speaker repeated his ruling that the motion was not in order. He stated that the
only proper motion was to pass retain the pending motion to refer.
A third member raised a point of order that only calendar items could be pass retained
and, since a motion to refer was not a calendar item, the motion to pass retain the entire bill was
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. The motion to pass retain takes
precedence over debate on the motion to refer, however, a motion to pass retain the main
question cannot be made while another motion is pending. Thus, the correct motion was to
pass retain the pending motion rather than the substantive question, which was not at that
moment before the House.
Abate, March 26, 1980.
MOTION TO AMEND AND MOTION TO PASS TEMPORARILY
Formerly HP 495
A member called an amendment by LCO number. The amendment was not in the clerk's
The deputy speaker ruled that, because the amendment was not in the clerk's
possession it was not before the House. He asked for additional remarks on the bill.
A second member called for another amendment. The first member rose to a point of
parliamentary inquiry and asked whether the second member could introduce his amendment
while his own was pending.
The deputy speaker repeated his ruling that the first member's amendment was not
pending because it was not in the clerk's possession. The second member's amendment was
The first member then moved to pass the bill temporarily until his amendment was ready.
A third member rose to a point of order that the motion to pass temporarily was improper
because the first member had risen to a point of parliamentary inquiry and could not use that as
an opportunity to make motions.
The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken. The first member must seek the floor
in the regular way in order to make a motion. He awarded the second member the floor.
Smoko, May 23, 1989.
MOTIONS, Section 22 -----
22-2. MOTION TO PASS TEMPORARILY
LIMITED DEBATE ON MOTION (
Formerly HP 496
The bill concerned water and sewage facilities for Bradley Airport. The conference
committee report was called and passage moved. A member moved to pass the item temporarily
until another bill was sent down from the Senate. Several members objected to the motion and
considerable debate ensued. A member raised a point of order that a motion to pass temporarily
only requires limited debate.
The speaker ruled the point well taken and, after comments by one more member,
called for a vote.
Stolberg, June 8, 1983.
Formerly HP 497
The bill required universities receiving gifts over a certain size from foreign sources to
report any conditions attached to the gift to the commissioner of higher education. After
considerable debate on the bill, a member moved to pass it temporarily in order to draft a
technical amendment. Another member asked whether, if the motion were adopted, other
changes in the bill besides the technical amendment were possible.
The speaker said that a member making a motion to pass a bill temporarily did not
need to give a reason for the motion. If he chose to do so, as in this case, that did not limit
the options of other members with respect to the bill. They could have other amendments
drawn up if they wished.
Van Norstrand, May 5, 1985.
MOTION TO PASS TEMPORARILY ALWAYS IN ORDER
Formerly HP 41
The bill permitted the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD) to
report to the state auditors and legislative committees once, rather than twice, a year. The minority
leader offered House amendment "B" which would reduce the gasoline tax by seven cents, as
specified in the governor's budget proposal, and would require the Connecticut Economic
Conference Board to make yearly reports on the impact of the tax on the state's economy,
business environment, and tourism.
Several members spoke in support of the amendment, and the majority leader then moved
to pass the bill temporarily. The minority leader objected that the motion had been made in the
middle of debate.
The speaker pro tem ruled that a motion to pass temporarily was always in order
and took precedence when made.
Another member made a parliamentary inquiry whether a motion to pass temporarily was
The speaker pro tem explained that debate is limited to the issue of passing
temporarily and not the substance of the bill.
After limited debate, the motion carried by roll call vote.
Hartley, March 29, 2000.
MOTIONS, Section 22 -----
22-3. MOTION TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION
LIMITED DEBATE ON (
Formerly HP 507
During a special session called, in part, to consider gun control legislation, the gun
control bill was called and briefly described. A member moved to postpone consideration of the
bill until the General Assembly's next regular session in 1995.
The speaker ruled the motion to postpone was proper but he ruled that the current
General Assembly could not bind a future General Assembly by adopting the motion.
The member amended his motion to one to postpone consideration of the bill for the
special session. He started to debate the motion. Another member raised a point of order that a
motion to postpone was not debatable.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken. The motion was debatable but the
debate was limited to issue of whether to postpone.
A member began to describe what the gun control bill did not do. Another member raised
a point of order that discussion of the bill's substance was out of order.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken because the member had not started to
discuss the content of the bill. But he cautioned members that the scope of debate on the
motion to postpone was very limited.
On a roll call vote, the motion was adopted.
Ritter, May 17, 1994.
22-4. MOTION FOR PREVIOUS QUESTION
AS MOTION TO END DEBATE AND PRECEDENCE OF;
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE, REPORT (
Formerly HP 508
After three hours of debate on a conference committee report, and with at least 18
members still desiring to speak, a member rose to move the question.
The speaker stated that he would treat the member's motion as one for the previous
question, a motion that is in reality a motion to end debate immediately. The speaker ruled
that a motion for the previous question was not one he would normally allow but in this
situation it was in order because the pending question was a main question which was not
subject to amendment (
, a conference committee report). He also ruled the motion was
not debatable (
A member raised a point of order that the first member's motion should not be treated as a
motion for the previous question, but rather as a request of the House that it move to a vote very
soon. In any case, he said that any motion for the previous question must carry by a two-thirds
The speaker reiterated his ruling that the motion was for the previous question, that
it was a proper motion, and that such a motion need only carry by a simple majority
Another member asked if the motion to close debate could be amended (
MOTIONS - FOR PREVIOUS QUESTION ----- 22-4.1
The speaker ruled the pending motion was for the previous question, not to close or
limit debate. Motions for the previous question cannot be amended (
although motions to close or limit debate can be.
A member sought recognition for the purpose of making a motion.
The speaker ruled that the motion for the previous question takes precedence over
all other motions and therefore the member was out of order.
The member asked whether a motion of higher precedence in the House order than the
motion to close debate would be in order.
The speaker said again that no motion would be in order. He put the question and,
on a voice vote, the motion for the previous question carried.
A member raised a point of order that the conference committee report was not properly
before the House because it contained matters not included in the scope of the original bill
referred to it.
The speaker ruled the point not well taken.
A member moved that the House adjourn until 11:00 A.M. the following day.
The speaker ruled the motion out of order and announced an immediate roll call
vote on the conference committee report.
The machine was opened. Certain members refused to cast their votes. The majority leader
raised a point of order that members present in the chamber are required to vote.
The speaker ruled the point well taken and continued the roll call.
A number of members left the chamber and did not vote. When the result of the roll call
was announced, the conference committee report was adopted.
Abate, May 13, 1981.
22-5. MOTION TO RECOMMIT
OF CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT;
CONFERENCE COMMITTEE (
Formerly HP 519
A member raised a point of order that it was inappropriate to recommit to the
Appropriations Committee a bill which had been reported by a committee on conference.
The deputy speaker ruled the point well taken. Conference committee reports may
be referred only to select committees or committees of the whole.
Formerly HP 518
A vote was taken on a motion to recommit a bill to committee. Before the gavel sounded,
a motion was made to divide the House. Considerable discussion and parliamentary activity
ensued, during which the motion for division was withdrawn. A member rose to a point of order
that since the gavel had not sounded and the motion for division was withdrawn, other discussion
and motions were out of order and it remained for the speaker to rule on whether the motion to
recommit had passed.
MOTIONS - TO RECOMMIT ----- 22-5.2
The speaker ruled the point well taken and that the motion to recommit had passed.
OF JUDICIAL NOMINATION (
Formerly HP 520
A member moved to recommit a resolution confirming a judicial nomination. Another
member asked for a roll call on the motion. The first member raised a point of order that the
motion to recommit was subservient to a judicial nomination and, therefore, a roll call vote was
The speaker ruled the point not well taken.
EFFECT OF (
Formerly HP 517
A member moved to recommit a bill to the Labor and Public Employees Committee on
the day before the session ended. The deputy speaker indicated that sending the bill back to
committee would kill it. Several members made parliamentary inquiries as to the effect of
defeating the motion.
The deputy speaker explained that defeating the motion would leave the bill on the
House calendar. All bills on the calendar are available to be called, but she did not give
odds as to whether they would be.
Currey, May 2, 2000.
22-6. MOTION TO RECONSIDER
EFFECT OF TECHNICAL SESSION ON TIME LIMIT
Formerly HP 530
A member asked whether a session held merely to advance the calendar would have any effect
on a motion to reconsider a bill passed on the previous regular session day.
The speaker ruled that a technical session did not prejudice the right to move for
MAY NOT BE OFFERED TWICE (
Formerly HP 529
A member moved to refer a bill to the Appropriations Committee. Another member
raised the point of order that the motion to refer had previously been reconsidered and no motion
may be considered twice.
The speaker ruled the point well taken.
EFFECT OF (
Formerly HP 528
A motion to reconsider a vote to refer a bill to committee carried. A member moved to
pass retain the bill. A second member asked whether the original motion to refer must be
disposed of before a second motion could be entertained.
MOTIONS - TO RECONSIDER ----- 22-6.3
The speaker ruled that passage of the motion to reconsider nullified the original
motion to refer.
PROHIBITED ON SAME SESSION DAY (
Formerly HP 527
A member moved to reconsider a vote just taken.
The deputy speaker ruled that an action could not be reconsidered until the next
REASON FOR IRRELEVANT (
Formerly HP 526
A member moved to reconsider a bill passed the night before in order to allow the House
to reconsider a proposed amendment to the bill which had failed on a voice vote. Another
member rose to a point of parliamentary inquiry as to whether a motion to reconsider was in
order without some technical defect in the bill or other error.
The speaker answered that it was up to the House whether or not to reconsider a
bill. It could do so if members have changed their minds or as a courtesy to a member who
wished to present new information or additional arguments. As long as the time limits were
observed and the member moving to reconsider had been on the prevailing side, the motion
was in order (
457(1), 461(1), 464(1)).
Abate, April 30, 1982.
OF A BILL REFERRED TO COMMITTEE (
Formerly HP 525
An amendment to a bill was adopted which necessitated a referral from the floor to the
Appropriations Committee. By unanimous consent, the bill was referred. The next session day, a
member moved to reconsider the bill. A member raised a point of parliamentary inquiry as to
whether a bill referred to a committee becomes the possession of the committee clerk and thus
cannot be reconsidered because it is no longer in the House clerk's possession.
The speaker replied that all actions taken by the House can be reconsidered on the
following day unless the rules had been suspended and the bill was physically gone.
The member then raised a point of order that the motion to reconsider was not proper
because the House clerk did not have physical possession of the bill.
The speaker ruled the point well taken but stated that the motion could be
withdrawn for the present and introduced later when the bill was "recaptured" from the
The member raised a point of parliamentary inquiry as to the authority of the House clerk
to retrieve a bill from a committee without a formal House resolution asking for its recall.
The speaker replied that since the rules state that a decision can be reconsidered on
the next session day, the House clerk could bring the bill back. Once it was in their
possession, a motion to reconsider the decision to refer would be appropriate.
April 20, 1983.
Documents you may be interested
Documents you may be interested