Moving to Previous Question

[Guest Aguirre]

Previous question cannot interrupt whoever has the floor, but must someone have the floor to make the motion? For instance, debate-against had expired, but before debate-for began someone moved to previous question. Is this allowable? Or must they have the floor before making the motion?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

A member must have the floor to move the previous question. Also, see FAQ #11.

[Transpower]

Also, it must be seconded!  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 22-23 in tinted pages.

[jstackpo]

... and adopted!  (to stop debate, that is)  with a 2/3 vote.

[Richard Brown]

Previous question cannot interrupt whoever has the floor, but must someone have the floor to make the motion?

I think we all agree that, per RONR, someone who wants to move The Previous Question must first be recognized and that the chair can ignore a call for the previous question from someone who has not been recognized. 

 

However, playing the devil's advocate for a minute, what if a member moves the previous question without having been recognized, a second member seconds it, and the chair then says, "The Previous Question is moved and seconded.  The motion is not debatable.  All those in favor of ordering the previous question say Aye", etc, and the assembly does order the previous question by a two thirds vote.  Nobody makes a point of order that the mover was not recognized.

 

Since the chair plainly took cognizance that the previous question had been moved and seconded and the assembly thereafter ordered the previous question by a two thirds vote without objection and without anyone making a point of order, has the previous question actually been ordered?   Is the vote valid, assuming there are no irregularities other than the fact that the chair did not recognize the mover prior to the motion being made?

 

It seems to me that the situation is much like a motion failing to get a second or like any other breach of procedure that requires a timely point of order:  If the chair "accepts" the motion and puts it to a vote even though he never recognized the member to make the motion, its adoption is nonetheless valid unless someone raises a timely point of order.

 

Edited to add:  I'm posing the above hypothetical because I have a hunch that this scenario is likely something that actually happened and the original poster is wondering if the action was "legitimate".

[George Mervosh]

Since the chair plainly took cognizance that the previous question had been moved and seconded and the assembly thereafter ordered the previous question by a two thirds vote without objection and without anyone making a point of order, has the previous question actually been ordered?   Is the vote valid, assuming there are no irregularities other than the fact that the chair did not recognize the mover prior to the motion being made?

 

Yes. A timely point of order is required. 

[Timothy]

I think we all agree that, per RONR, someone who wants to move The Previous Question must first be recognized and that the chair can ignore a call for the previous question from someone who has not been recognized. 

 

However, playing the devil's advocate for a minute, what if a member moves the previous question without having been recognized, a second member seconds it, and the chair then says, "The Previous Question is moved and seconded.  The motion is not debatable.  All those in favor of ordering the previous question say Aye", etc, and the assembly does order the previous question by a two thirds vote.  Nobody makes a point of order that the mover was not recognized.

 

Since the chair plainly took cognizance that the previous question had been moved and seconded and the assembly thereafter ordered the previous question by a two thirds vote without objection and without anyone making a point of order, has the previous question actually been ordered?   Is the vote valid, assuming there are no irregularities other than the fact that the chair did not recognize the mover prior to the motion being made?

 

It seems to me that the situation is much like a motion failing to get a second or like any other breach of procedure that requires a timely point of order:  If the chair "accepts" the motion and puts it to a vote even though he never recognized the member to make the motion, its adoption is nonetheless valid unless someone raises a timely point of order.

 

Edited to add:  I'm posing the above hypothetical because I have a hunch that this scenario is likely something that actually happened and the original poster is wondering if the action was "legitimate".

 

While we're playing Devil's advocate, would the same be true if the organization has rules about the order in which debate will be handled, such that those who will be recognized to speak are queued up as those in favor and those who are opposed? Might it be possible that accepting the motion for the previous question would be a violation of the bylaws because the person was not in one of the queues?

[George Mervosh]

While we're playing Devil's advocate, would the same be true if the organization has rules about the order in which debate will be handled, such that those who will be recognized to speak are queued up as those in favor and those who are opposed? Might it be possible that accepting the motion for the previous question would be a violation of the bylaws because the person was not in one of the queues?

 

A timely point of order is required when rules governing debate or assignment of the floor are violated.

[Gary Novosielski]

Previous question cannot interrupt whoever has the floor, but must someone have the floor to make the motion? For instance, debate-against had expired, but before debate-for began someone moved to previous question. Is this allowable? Or must they have the floor before making the motion?

This type of debate is quite abnormal.

If you're following RONR, the maker of a motion has first claim on the floor, to speak in favor of the motion. So debate in favor usually precedes debate against the motion.

After debate begins, to the extent possible, and to the extent he knows how the members will argue, the chair should recognize pro- and anti- speakers alternately, so that at any time, both sides have been represented about the same.

And--this is my opinion, not General Robert's--once either side has run out of speakers, that's as good a time as any to move the Previous Question.