Guest baseg Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:35 AM After a motion has been made and a second follows, the chair asks for discussion. After discussion has come to an end, and a person is recognized to speak, they announce "I call the question" does the membership have to move, second and vote on "calling the question"? Or do you just procede to the motion that was on the floor and vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:41 AM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:41 AM See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#11 written by the RONR Authors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:42 AM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:42 AM After someone has moved the Previous Question (which is the correct language) the assembly would vote on whether the pending question should be put to an immediate vote. If 2/3 are in favor of it then the pending question is put to a vote but if 2/3 are not in favor then the motion can be further considered. See RONR pp. 197-209. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:45 AM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 02:45 AM Must they vote? If he is reasonably sure there really is no more debate in the offing, the chair could respond by just saying:"Thank you. If there is no more debate [ pause to allow someone to jump up, indicating they do want to debate ], we shall now vote on the motion to ..."Sometimes someone will "jump up". If so explain that the previous question has been called for, then say "All those in favor of stopping debate and voting immediately, please rise....."This may be slightly non-standard, but it is fair, and saves unnecessary votes on the initial call for the question.Then, after the meeting, go and explain to the caller why "I call for the question" is unnecessary if there is nobody seeking recognition to debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 12, 2012 at 04:14 AM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 04:14 AM If 2/3 are in favor of it then the pending question is put to a vote but if 2/3 are not in favor then the motion can be further considered.And what if the vote is 60/40? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:03 PM Then, after the meeting, go and explain to the caller why "I call for the question" is unnecessary if there is nobody seeking recognition to debate.Or, better yet, give this explanation during the meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 12:26 PM And what if the vote is 60/40? Such a vote would generally not be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted November 12, 2012 at 04:22 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 04:22 PM And what if the vote is 60/40? Debate continues - there was not a two thirds majority. 60 is only 60% of 100 votes, not 67% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 12, 2012 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 04:36 PM Debate continues - there was not a two thirds majority. 60 is only 60% of 100 votes, not 67%Remember: rhetorical questions require rhetorical answers. And thank goodness there was not a "two thirds majority" or "67%," especially here on the world's premier parliamentary site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:14 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 05:14 PM Somehow I've managed to derail this thread, when all I was trying to do was give Chris H. a hard time about the wording of his answer in post #3. My only point was that rejecting a motion for the Previous Question doesn't require two-thirds not in favor; it requires merely less than two-thirds in favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted November 12, 2012 at 06:20 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 06:20 PM Somehow I've managed to derail this thread, when all I was trying to do was give Chris H. a hard time about the wording of his answer in post #3. My only point was that rejecting a motion for the Previous Question doesn't require two-thirds not in favor; it requires merely less than two-thirds in favor.I think at least 2/3 of readers didn't not get your point, though fewer may have actually gotten it. Anyway, it was an impressively effective derailment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 12, 2012 at 08:18 PM Report Share Posted November 12, 2012 at 08:18 PM I think at least 2/3 of readers didn't not get your point, though fewer may have actually gotten it.I'm pretty sure I didn't not get his point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted November 13, 2012 at 02:18 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2012 at 02:18 PM I'm pretty sure I didn't not get his point. I didn't not either, or at least it wasn't not my impression that I understood it when I read post #5 a few days ago . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Ahern Posted November 13, 2015 at 06:00 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 at 06:00 PM I realize this is an old thread but I wonder what would be the proper way to ask the chair to give the explanation during the meeting. Would I make a Point of Order, a Point of Privilege or a Point of Information in order to ask the chair to remind members that it's unnecessary to Call the Previous Question as the chair can move directly to the vote (if there is no objection) without the question being called? Or would I have to approach the chair outside of the meeting to ask him to do that? We have a member who has become a nuisance by constantly raising his card to prematurely Call the Question while the chair is asking if anyone would like to speak against a motion/resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 13, 2015 at 06:12 PM Report Share Posted November 13, 2015 at 06:12 PM It would help to start a new thread on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Ahern Posted November 14, 2015 at 04:27 PM Report Share Posted November 14, 2015 at 04:27 PM It would help to start a new thread on it. Thank you. I'll do that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 30, 2015 at 09:42 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 at 09:42 PM What if the debate has waned, but chair does not call for a vote on the motion. So, then a member "calls the previous question" and the body votes and 2 vote no and 3 vote yes - 60%. The call of the question has failed. The chair asks for further discussion on the motion before the members. No members have discussion. The chair still does not call for a vote. What next? How to deal with the motion where the chair won't call for a vote and the members won't force a vote by 2/3 majority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted December 30, 2015 at 10:00 PM Report Share Posted December 30, 2015 at 10:00 PM 15 minutes ago, Guest said: What if the debate has waned, but chair does not call for a vote on the motion. So, then a member "calls the previous question" and the body votes and 2 vote no and 3 vote yes - 60%. The call of the question has failed. The chair asks for further discussion on the motion before the members. No members have discussion. The chair still does not call for a vote. What next? How to deal with the motion where the chair won't call for a vote and the members won't force a vote by 2/3 majority? First off, the Previous Question is not appropriate in such a small body. If nobody wishes to speak to a motion, it is the chair's duty to put the question. What else is he going to do? Allow an awkward silence? For future reference it's customary on this forum to start a new thread for a new question, even if an existing one seems relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted December 31, 2015 at 06:39 PM Report Share Posted December 31, 2015 at 06:39 PM 20 hours ago, Guest said: What if the debate has waned, but chair does not call for a vote on the motion. So, then a member "calls the previous question" and the body votes and 2 vote no and 3 vote yes - 60%. The call of the question has failed. The chair asks for further discussion on the motion before the members. No members have discussion. The chair still does not call for a vote. What next? How to deal with the motion where the chair won't call for a vote and the members won't force a vote by 2/3 majority? The proper course of action at that point would be to raise a Point of Order that, since no member is seeking recognition, the immediately pending motion is to be put to a vote. If the chair still does not cooperate, you may need to follow with an Appeal and/or the tools to deal with abuse of authority by the chairman during a meeting, as discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-653. 20 hours ago, Thomas Ralph said: First off, the Previous Question is not appropriate in such a small body. Says who? 20 hours ago, Thomas Ralph said: What else is he going to do? Allow an awkward silence? Apparently so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 1, 2016 at 05:47 AM Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 at 05:47 AM It might be good to reflect on the fact that a preferred method for the chair to ask whether there is any further debate is to ask, "Are you ready for the question?" If no one seeks recognition at that point, the assumption is that the assembly is ready for the question, and the presiding officer, newly aware of this state of readiness, should put it--the question, that is. You might try a Parliamentary Inquiry, asking whether there is anything at this point that he would like those in favor of the motion to say, such as, perhaps, "Aye"? That might get him jump-started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted January 1, 2016 at 10:51 AM Report Share Posted January 1, 2016 at 10:51 AM 16 hours ago, Josh Martin said: Says who? Perhaps I have slightly exceeded the remit of the footnote of p. 488 which says that "in meetings of a small board... occasions where [Limit/Extend Limits of Debate and Previous Question] are necessary or appropriate may be rarer than in larger assemblies". As the chair is likely to be aware of who voted in the negative to the Previous Question, he should probably invite either of them to seek recognition as they seem to have more to say on the pending motion. I do like Mr. Novosielski's suggestion as to the parliamentary enquiry, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted January 3, 2016 at 08:11 AM Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 at 08:11 AM On 11/13/2015 at 1:12 PM, Hieu H. Huynh said: It would help to start a new thread on it. Still, it was good to see David and Trina again, if only historically. (HHH, are they from before your tenure here?+) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.