Calling for the question

[Guest MICHAEL MCCOY]

At a recent board meeting, a board member made a motion to remove the chairman of our Grievance Committee. The motion was seconded by another board member and then the board member who made the motion "Called for the question" and stated that there would be no discussion for her motion.

This board member stated that she was very familiar with Roberts Rules and that she could call for the question and have the board vote to remove the committee chairman without any discussion. The board then voted to remove the chairman of the Grievance Committee. Does Roberts Rules actually allow this or was this just a sham?

[Chris Harrison]

A sham. A 2/3 vote is required to order the Previous Question (stop all discussion). See RONR pp. 189-201. Also, if the Board had about a dozen members or less present ordering the Previous Question generally shouldn't have been entertained to start off with (RONR p. 470)

[George Mervosh]

She can make a motion for the previous question (or call the question) if she has the floor. The motion is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote to end debate. She cannot demand anything like she did.

[jstackpo]

Well, she "can", she did, and she got away with it. Shame on the other board members.

What I wondered was whether the Board has the authority to "remove" the Grievance Committee Chair. Who appointed him/her?

[Chris Harrison]

Well, she "can", she did, and she got away with it. Shame on the other board members.

Yes, shame on the Board members. But even more shame on the Board Chair. That someone who has taken on the duty of presiding over the meeting is obviously so unfamiliar with the rules that he or she didn't immediately rein in the member is inexcusable.

[Guest Michael McCoy]

Well, she "can", she did, and she got away with it. Shame on the other board members.

What I wondered was whether the Board has the authority to "remove" the Grievance Committee Chair. Who appointed him/her?

You stated exactly what happened and she made her statement so strong that the other board members were afraid to question her. The state of Florida requires that the chairman of the Grievance Committee and the members be appointed by the board so I assume that they have the power to remove members also. I was a member of this committee.

[Weldon Merritt]

she made her statement so strong that the other board members were afraid to question her.

[Weldon Merritt]

This seems to happen much too often. Self-proclaiemd experts could get away with a lot less if other members simply had the gumption to say, "Show me the rule."

[Guest paulc6]

see Roberts P244 and 255. calling the question before all members have had a chance to speak is a continuing breach and the vote is null and void and should be entertained again properly. paul

[J. J.]

see Roberts P244 and 255. calling the question before all members have had a chance to speak is a continuing breach and the vote is null and void and should be entertained again properly. paul

No place does RONR come even close to claiming that. The action taken would not be invalid because of the improper "calling for the question."

[Rob Elsman]

She can make a motion for the previous question (or call the question) if she has the floor. The motion is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote to end debate. She cannot demand anything like she did.

In small boards, a motion for the Previous Question should usually not be entertained. RONR (10th ed.), p. 470, ll. 28-30.

[MICHAEL MCCOY]

In small boards, a motion for the Previous Question should usually not be entertained. RONR (10th ed.), p. 470, ll. 28-30.

This is a small, seven (7) member, HOA board of directors.

[J. J.]

This is a small, seven (7) member, HOA board of directors.

That would be considered a "small board."

[George Mervosh]

No place does RONR come even close to claiming that. The action taken would not be invalid because of the improper "calling for the question."

And paulc6, RP should know it.

[Dan Honemann]

And paulc6, RP should know it.

Yeah, and so should everyone else.

[J. J.]

Yeah, and so should everyone else.

Dan, you are using my favorite icon.

[Guest paulc6]

And paulc6, RP should know it.

paulc6, RP, pointed to the wording on 255. If I am misinterpreting, point out where and that will be educational. Debate is a basic right of every member, if some have not been allowed to speak beacause 2/3rds decide the question should be called, does that not mean a basic right has not been taken away. something that cannot be done even with unanimous consent? Maybe I am incorrect, but show me. Paul

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Debate is a basic right of every member, if some have not been allowed to speak beacause 2/3rds decide the question should be called, does that not mean a basic right has not been taken away. something that cannot be done even with unanimous consent? Maybe I am incorrect, but show me.

paulc6 - think this through, in a Socratic style:

Let's assume for the moment you are correct - that the motion, PREVIOUS QUESTION, is somehow out of order when there are members who still wish to speak.

If that is the case, then you must tell us when the motion PREVIOUS QUESTION can be:

(a.) moved, without a continuing breach being triggered.

(b.) voted on, without a continuing breach being triggered.

Likewise again, if that is the case, then why does no Standard Descriptive Characteristic of PREVIOUS QUESTION fail to mention that it is out of order when at least one member wishes to speak? Shouldn't SDC #1 or #2 imply when this motion is out of order in that way?

Q. Why does RONR have certain motions require a two-thirds vote, and not a majority vote?

I think if you answer the above queries, you'll come to the conclusion that a two-thirds vote is always required whenever a basic right is involved below the level of a bylaws-level rule.

[Josh Martin]

paulc6, RP, pointed to the wording on 255. If I am misinterpreting, point out where and that will be educational. Debate is a basic right of every member, if some have not been allowed to speak beacause 2/3rds decide the question should be called, does that not mean a basic right has not been taken away. something that cannot be done even with unanimous consent? Maybe I am incorrect, but show me. Paul

Paul, I assume you are referring to RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 25-28: "the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions, speak in debate, and vote, which are basic rights that may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings." Therefore, the assembly cannot make a motion "That Mr. X may not speak for the rest of the meeting." However, the lines immediately preceding that citation read "while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question" (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 22-24). Thus, it is in order to cut off debate for all members, rather than singling out an individual. Since the rule is generally applicable, it is a rule protecting a minority, not a rule protecting an individual member. There is a balance that must be struck between the rights of the minority and the rights of the majority, and therefore, "Only two thirds or more of those present and voting may deny a minority or any member the right of such discussion." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. xlvii) This general rule also applies to the Previous Question. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 192, line 24)

Since this is a rule that protects a minority, not a rule protecting an individual member, it is suspendable by a 2/3 vote or by unanimous consent. While the chair was incorrect in failing to call for a vote, this does not meet any of the conditions on RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244, lines 10-23. Thus, the general rule applies - that the Point of Order must be made at the time the breach occurs. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 243, lines 19-20)

[Guest paulc6]

The wording on 255 related to the basic right to participate is clear. Plus, as in the by-laws of an organization that I am familiar with, state "all members will be allowed to speak at least once and for not more than 10 mins....". I realize that this would supercede Roberts, but I also believe the wording on 255 and the basic premise that everyone should be allowed to speak to a motion cannot be taken away be calling the question. In other words, the time you can call the question is after everyone has had a chance to speak, not before. I do appreciate the information passed on due to this question. Paulc6

[hmtcastle]

the basic premise that everyone should be allowed to speak to a motion cannot be taken away be calling the question.

There is no such basic premise in RONR. If there were, it would defeat the very purpose of ordering the previous question which is to end debate regardless of whether everyone has had a chance to speak. The two-thirds vote required prevents "a temporary majority of only one vote [from denying] the remaining members all opportunity to discuss any measure that such a majority wanted to adopt or kill". (pp.192-193).

[Rob Elsman]

The wording on 255 related to the basic right to participate is clear. Plus, as in the by-laws of an organization that I am familiar with, state "all members will be allowed to speak at least once and for not more than 10 mins....". I realize that this would supercede Roberts, but I also believe the wording on 255 and the basic premise that everyone should be allowed to speak to a motion cannot be taken away be calling the question. In other words, the time you can call the question is after everyone has had a chance to speak, not before. I do appreciate the information passed on due to this question. Paulc6

Complete hogwash, Paul.

In fact, the opposite is the case. The first member recognized by the chair after the question has been stated (often, this is the maker) has the right to move the Previous Question, whether or not he has made remarks in debate. In fact, it is even possible for a member to move that the assembly immediately agree to...[a main motion], precluding debate and amendment, though such a motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

Paul, while it is true that the right of an individual member to speak in debate cannot be suspended except as the result of a disciplinary action (or the operation of some rule of the society in the bylaws), the parliamentary right of members in general to speak in debate can be suspended by a two-thirds vote at any time when the motion for the Previous Question is in order. It is absolutely clear beyond any doubt that the Previous Question is in order when a debatable motion is immediately pending, even if its adoption precludes members who might wish to do so from speaking once in debate. You seem to have completely confused and conflated the unsuspendable rights of individual members with the suspendable parliamentary rights of members in general. I suggest you hit the book hard and see if you can finally get these disentwined and drop this obviously faulty opinion of yours.

[Ann Rempel]

The wording on 255 related to the basic right to participate is clear. Plus, as in the by-laws of an organization that I am familiar with, state "all members will be allowed to speak at least once and for not more than 10 mins....". I realize that this would supercede Roberts, but I also believe the wording on 255 and the basic premise that everyone should be allowed to speak to a motion cannot be taken away be calling the question. In other words, the time you can call the question is after everyone has had a chance to speak, not before. I do appreciate the information passed on due to this question. Paulc6

The subsidiary motion Previous Question exists for a very good reason. To stop debate and amendments when two-thirds of those present and voting want it stopped. The rights of the assembly override the member's right to keep talking. If the Previous Question is moved, seconded, and adopted by a two-thirds vote, then it is ordered that debate stop -- no matter how many people have or have not spoken in debate. Please reveiw pp. 189-201.

[Guest paul]

I don't know how using the term hogwash lends itself to debate about the plain english that states that speaking to a motion is a basic right. If one is saying it does not say that, fine, point that out. Previous question cannot be used in commitees or small boards. AND cannot be used if by-laws state that all members may speak to an issue. Why is it such a stretch that it should no be used until each voting member has spoken at least once???

Rules that limit debate keep discussion from being repetitive and going on too long.

Why does a Chair sometime use unanimous consent before ending debate where if one member wants the item debated, they can have it.

Enough said, thanks for input and explanations. It is probably up to each organization to determine a fair application of previous question. IMO, leave it out. There are other methods of closing debate without keeping 1/3 of voting members from speaking to an issue. paul

[hmtcastle]

Why is it such a stretch that it should no be used until each voting member has spoken at least once???

It's not such a stretch but it's not supported by RONR.