Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Previous Question on a Divided Main Motion


D.Llama

Recommended Posts

A motion to divide a question was pending  - re   two separate questions .  While divide was pending a motion was  made for Previous Question on all pending questions . That carried , and then the motion to divide carried . The first of the two questions ( divided ) was then voted on and defeated . The Chair then called for debate on the remaining question ( as divided ) . A member then raised a Point of Order and offered that the vote on the Previous Question applied  to this question as well -and that debate was accordingly closed . The Chair  answered that the Point of Order was not well taken and allowed additional debate . Was the chair correct  or in error ? Is there a specific page and line that addresses this point - in RONR? 

Any ( all )  responses  much appreciated .

dllama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As they say in Hollywood, "Timing is everything."

   • The Division of the Question should have been clarified regarding its application.

   • The Previous Question should have been clarified regarding its target(s): Resolution #1, or #2, or both resolutions #1 and #2.

***

You cannot move the Previous Question while Division of the Question is pending.

But since you did nest two motions, then you have created an ambiguity, which cannot be answered after the event.

(However, you can move to Divide the Question after adoption (!) of Previous Question.)

***

Since there was an ambiguity, then to solve the ambiguity, you raise a Point of Order.

If you don't like the ruling on the Point of Order, then you raise an Appeal from the Decision of the Chair.

And then, "that is that."

***

Since the Point of Order was ruled "not well taken" and SINCE THERE WAS NO APPEAL, the the chair ruled "correctly" (or as correctly as the assembly acquiesced.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S1.) A motion to divide a question was carried  - making   two separate questions.  

S2.) While divide was pending a motion was  made for Previous Question on all pending questions . That carried,

S3.) ... and then the motion to divide carried .

This is garbled.

S1 says that DIVIDE THE Q was adopted.
S2 says that while DIVIDE THE Q was pending, PQ was adopted.
S3 says that DIVIDE THE Q was adopted AGAIN.

Q. Why did you adopt DIVIDE THE Q twice? (see S1 and S3)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Goldsworthy - in the SDC for  Division of a Question -it provides in #  1. 

"It yields to all subsidiary motions except  Postpone Indefinitely , Amend , and Limit or extend  Limits of Debate ."

It  therefore seeming yields to Postpone to a Certain Time , Previous Question and Table . I do note the content of SDC # 2  , but not clear on this ? Does motion to Divide   yield  to Previous Question or not ? Your further comment invited and looked forward to !

DLama

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The motion to divide the question - like most incidental motions - is not debatable; but it is amendable - if in theory the question can be divided in more than one way. Therefore, the previous question may be applied as a way to deter proposed amendment to Divide the Question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-you Mr Britton . This response seems to differ from that of Mr Goldsworthy in that his view is that Previous Question is not available  over the motion to divide ( if I understood him correctly when I got the question rightly set )  . I would appreciated the page and line number that  each of you rely on - for your respective  opinions  from RONR- if  you can provide that and thank-you. 

And Mr Britton could you go further and advise - what would your  opinion be   on the initial question- as corrected ( above ) - would the Chair be correct  or not correct in allowing  debate on the second standing  matter - as  it was divided . Thank-you .

DLlama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True. -- I forgot that Previous Question has a secondary purpose of "stopping amendments."

But -- in the given scenario, there would seem to be no amendments possible, where a resolution is divided into two.

I had assumed Previous Question to be used "To stop debate" in the given scenario. (Was it?)

It never occurred to me that it would be rational to move Previous Question to "stop amendments" on a motion "to divide the question."

***

So I stand corrected -- It is possible to move Previous Question.

But I would not anticipated it so, since its purpose here is questionable. -- Namely, "to stop the splitting of the resolution into more parts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Goldsworthy :

The end may be near . If Previous Question is permitted and it carries - does it attach to both parts of the divided question ? . The first part of the divided question - is defeated in this scenario  . The Chair  then turns to the second part - is it debatable or has  the earlier carried Previous Question  -attached to both parts . Was the Chair in error to allow debate ? Obliged .

Ddlama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

 

The end may be near . If Previous Question is permitted and it carries - does it attach to both parts of the divided question ? . The first part of the divided question - is defeated in this scenario  . The Chair  then turns to the second part - is it debatable or has  the earlier carried Previous Question  -attached to both parts . Was the Chair in error to allow debate ? Obliged .

Ddlama

In the scenario you described, after division was ordered, the previous question shouldn't have been  applied to either resulting main motions; it was only proper for it to be applied to the motion to divide. However, it the chair erred, by ordering the  previous question to the first resulting main motion, and if that error didn't result in some sort of continuing breach of order or a timely point of order wasn't raised, the chair putting the question on the first main motion is moot. The chair allowing debate on the second resulting main motion was correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mr. Britton :

When the Previuos Question was advanced it specifically was stated to be for " all pending questions  (see above ) so it was arguably applicable to the motion to divide  and the main motion . However, you do provide that regardless the Chair would not have been in error by allowing for debate on the second  main motion . And obliged for that - BUT are you able to identify the page and line number you rely on as RONR authority for this response . Much  Obliged .

Ddlama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, D.Llama said:

Sorry that was mis-stated at the outset . While the motion to divide  was pending  the motion for Previous question was made . But I cannot see in RONR ( page and line )  that Previous Question is not allowed at that point ? Thanks 

 

DL  

In the future, please do not edit a post to make a correction without using strike-outs and underlines to show what the correction was, especially after someone else has responded based on the original posting. This creates much confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, D.Llama said:

Mr Goldsworthy - in the SDC for  Division of a Question -it provides in #  1. 

"It yields to all subsidiary motions except  Postpone Indefinitely , Amend , and Limit or extend  Limits of Debate ."

It  therefore seeming yields to Postpone to a Certain Time , Previous Question and Table . I do note the content of SDC # 2  , but not clear on this ? Does motion to Divide   yield  to Previous Question or not ? Your further comment invited and looked forward to !

I think the motion to Commit is feeling left out at this point. :)

(And the name of the motion in RONR is "Lay on the Table"; "Table" is for lesser parliamentary authorities.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steven Britton said:

The motion to divide the question - like most incidental motions - is not debatable; but it is amendable - if in theory the question can be divided in more than one way. Therefore, the previous question may be applied as a way to deter proposed amendment to Divide the Question.

I agree with this. The motion for Division of the Question is amendable if the question can be divided in more than one way. And if Division of the Question is so amendable, then a motion for the Previous Question will take precedence over it. See SDCs 1 and 2 of the Previous Question, pages 198-199:

"Previous Question: 1. Takes precedence over all debatable or amendable motions to which it is applied, . . . 2. Can be applied to any immediately pending debatable or amendable motion; to an entire series of pending debatable or amendable motions; and to any consecutive part of such a series, beginning with the immediately pending question. . . ."

31 minutes ago, Steven Britton said:

In the scenario you described, after division was ordered, the previous question shouldn't have been  applied to either resulting main motions; it was only proper for it to be applied to the motion to divide. However, it the chair erred, by ordering the  previous question to the first resulting main motion, and if that error didn't result in some sort of continuing breach of order or a timely point of order wasn't raised, the chair putting the question on the first main motion is moot. The chair allowing debate on the second resulting main motion was correct.

This I don't agree with. As D.Llama notes:

23 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

But Mr. Britton :

When the Previuos Question was advanced it specifically was stated to be for " all pending questions  (see above ) so it was arguably applicable to the motion to divide  and the main motion .

As to the original question, whether debate is in order on the second part of the original motion, the answer is no. I don't believe RONR specifically addresses the point; however, the general rule is: "The conditions for exhaustion of the Previous Question are the same as for an order limiting or extending limits of debate—that is: (1) when all motions on which the Previous Question was ordered have been voted on; (2) when those not yet voted on have either been committed or postponed indefinitely; or (3) at the end of the session in which the Previous Question was ordered—whichever occurs first."

In this case, both parts of the original question were pending when the Previous Question was ordered, and they have not yet both been voted on, so the Previous Question remains in effect until they are both voted on.

What I would like to know is, what possible rationale could there have been for the chair to disallow debate on the first part of the motion but allow it on the second part? You say "The Chair  answered that the Point of Order was not well taken and allowed additional debate . Was the chair correct  or in error ?" Well, if the chair gave no reason for this ruling, then the chair was in error regardless of what the correct ruling should have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Gerber :

The Chair  considered that on the first question- it was absolutely clear -debate was ended  when Previous  Question (PQ)  was ordered . But  after the division was made  the Chair  was not satisfied that  Previous  Question attached  to the divided question second part - regardless that it was Ordered for the first part.  And indeed- the Chair indicated  as much when he allowed the debate on the second question to proceed.    My own sense is that the Chair was in error as  (agree with your conclusion Mr G. ) - the intent of the Previous  Question was to end debate on "all pending questions". Three were potentially  pending - when the PQ was  ordered -  the two eventually  divided and the  subsidiary motion to divide . 

Thank -you one and all .   

Ddlama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

nn'sMr. Gerber :

The Chair  considered that on the first question- it was absolutely clear -debate was ended  when Previous  Question (PQ)  was ordered . But  after the division was made  the Chair  was not satisfied that  Previous  Question attached  to the divided question second part - regardless that it was Ordered for the first part.  And indeed- the Chair indicated  as much when he allowed the debate on the second question to proceed.    My own sense is that the Chair was in error as  (agree with your conclusion Mr G. ) - the intent of the Previous  Question was to end debate on "all pending questions". Three were potentially  pending - when the PQ was  ordered -  the two eventually  divided and the  subsidiary motion to divide . 

Thank -you one and all .   

Ddlama

Dear Dolly,

My concern with your last post and in part, Mr. Gerber's answer, is that the motion to Divide the Question is not a subsidiary motion; but is an incidental motion. RONR 11th (ed)  discusses PQ within a context of applying to a  series of subsidiary motions applying to each other. I understand the previous question can be ordered on the incidental motion to divide the question, but ordering it on an  incidental motion to divide and allow it to be qualified in manner as if it were a series of subsidiary motions  is out side the context discussed on p. 65 - 66. My question to Mr. Gerber is, was qualifying it by moving the previous question on all pending questions in order to begin with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

In the future, please do not edit a post to make a correction without using strike-outs and underlines to show what the correction was, especially after someone else has responded based on the original posting. This creates much confusion.

ok -  appreciated and for sure - will do !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Steven Britton said:

Dear Dolly,

My concern with your last post and in part, Mr. Gerber's answer, is that the motion to Divide the Question is not a subsidiary motion; but is an incidental motion. RONR 11th (ed)  discusses PQ within a context of applying to a  series of subsidiary motions applying to each other. I understand the previous question can be ordered on the incidental motion to divide the question, but ordering it on an  incidental motion to divide and allow it to be qualified in manner as if it were a series of subsidiary motions  is out side the context discussed on p. 65 - 66. My question to Mr. Gerber is, was qualifying it by moving the previous question on all pending questions in order to begin with?

Yes, of course it was in order to move the previous question on all pending questions.

Two motions were pending at the time when the previous question was ordered on all pending questions, the main motion and the motion to divide the main motion. As a consequence, the previous question was ordered on the main motion as well as the motion to divide the main motion. Had the motion to divide the main motion been defeated, the main motion would have been under the order for the previous question, and there should be no doubt but that, after the main motion is divided, both parts of that motion remain under the order for the previous question. The same thing is true if a motion to divide the main motion is made and adopted after the previous question has been ordered on the main motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...