Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'previous question'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • RONR Message Board – Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised
    • General Discussion
    • Advanced Discussion
    • The Robert’s Rules Website
  • About the Message Board
    • Questions or Comments about the Message Board


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Found 10 results

  1. A: I move that we paint the meeting room red and buy a new gavel. B: I call for a separate vote on buying a new gavel. Chair: We will have a separate vote on buying a new gavel. The question is on the motion that we paint the meeting room red. C: I move to strike out "red" and insert "green." D: I move the previous question on all pending questions. [Adopted] Question, has the previous question been ordered for buying a new gavel? I.e., is it pending? The explanation of "immediately pending" on page 60 pertains to main motions in connection with subsidiary motions, but the example gavel motion isn't subsidiary. It automatically comes up as a main motion after the painting question is disposed of, though, so in some sense it seems to be pending while the painting motion is pending. Scenario 2: Similarly, if main motion MM1 is pending, and is "postponed till after consideration of [main] motion to __" [MM2], and MM2 is made and has an amendment pending, and teh previous question on all pending questions is ordered, does it include MM1? Scenario 3: MM1 is interrupted by a special order, which then has an amendment offered. Does ordering the previous question on all pending questions include MM1? These examples have an amendment in them, but if the answer if Yes to the above, then it seems the even without an amendment the assembly could order the previous question on all pending questions to include the other motions previously made but not yet disposed of and which automatically become immediately pending when the priority pending motions are disposed of. Correct? Perhaps this is all clear in RONR, but I couldn't find it. Thanks in advance for your feedback.
  2. Is the motion to end debate (previous question) in order even if everyone in the meeting has not taken the floor?
  3. "In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21). Q1: Can this rule be suspended? Q2a: If not, by what cited rule / principle, on pp. 263-264, or elsewhere? Q2b: If it can be suspended, does the p. 261, l. 15 rule ("no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule") cause Suspend to require at least one more vote than two-thirds? I lean toward the notion that it cannot be suspended, because the group "protected" is the assembly, rather than some subset of the committee (whether present or absent). And even if there was no objection to "suspend the rules and close debate" (for instance), I'd think that it would not be in order, but that the chair could appropriately say something like, "Although the rules may not be suspended to close debate, the fact that there is no objection to doing so indicates that no one else is seeking to debate, thus we will proceed to putting the motion to a vote." Or am I missing something?
  4. heymetoothanks

    Question about Voting

    When it comes to a 2/3 majority, I understand that it is 2/3+1. However, let's say I have a chamber of 20, would I round up to 15 or round down to 14?
  5. I recently came across the following test question 25. The subsidiary motion for the Previous Question can be applied to an undebatable motion if a member wanted to a. stop an amendment.b. not allow members to ask questions.c. delete a question asked by a member that is recorded in the minutes of the previous meeting.d. make a motion to allow the assembly to debate it. The correct answer was marked C. Is that really correct? I remember reading in RONR that the previous question can be applied to fix time to which to ajourn to prevent the making of the motion and I can't even remember reading anything that pertained to C.
  6. parkourninja

    Dividing Question into 3 Parts

    If a question is capable of standing as three separate parts, can one motion to divide the question divide it into 3 parts or only 2? Slightly related, if a resolution is being considered by paragraph and the previous question is moved and adopted, does it force a vote on the entire resolution as a whole at that point?
  7. I was reading RONR 11th Ed. and was confused by Page 129, lines 33-35. This section seems to indicate that, upon the failure of a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, voting begins immediately on the main motion. My confusion emerges from the fact that, upon the failure of the PI motion, I would have thought that debate would recommence, if any members wished to do so. Only when debate was exhausted, or (with a 2/3 affirmative vote) a motion of Previous Question is passed would the main motion be put to the assembly for voting. The way lines 33-35 are written, the failure of the PI motion seems to be an implicit passage of a PQ. Is this in fact the case, or should the failure of the PI motion move the assembly back into debate instead? My apologies if this question has been answered elsewhere, or is in fact clarified elsewhere in RONR. (I'm only just beginning to truly learn the intricacies of RONR.)
  8. Would it generally be considered improper or not in the spirit of Roberts Rules to "call the question" immediately, i.e. to prevent any discussion or debate or discussion at all? I understand that the 2/3 vote requirement protects against gross abuse, but isn't "calling the question" intended to be used to end debate because it appears there has been sufficient opportunity for pros and cons and further debate will not really be productive. Is it respectful to have the attitude of "we have the votes so lets prevent any debate".
  9. Guest

    Previous Question

    Our custom has been that only those who have not spoken on a particular motion can "Move the previous question" (or "call the question" as it is often expressed). Is there a basis for our custom in RROO? Thank you
  10. Hello, My student association is more or less locked in to being a member of the Canadian Federation of Students as result of Bylaw amendments made after we joined (though that is another matter). At the regular general meetings of the organization, our attempts to effect change are constantly thwarted. Other delegations, on the advice of their staff, repeatedly call the question on any motion put forward by my association or by others who share our views immediately after the motion has been made and motivated to and then immediately vote our motions down. We have plead with other delegations to allow us to engage in debate, but they refuse. It is particularly saddening given that these are students who are refusing to allow other students to engage in discussion. Tonight I watched in horror as an entire report-full of Bylaw recommendations was voted on with no discussion on any of them, and as people cheered at their successes at stifling debate. Students lined up at the microphones all eager to get to be the one to call the question on any one of the motions up for debate. My question is this: Is there any way for our delegates to procedurally prevent moving the previous question? It would have to be a tight case because the Federation handpicks external chairs who have had long relationships with them and any attempt to demand a neutral chair is shot down. Any help that anyone can provide would be hugely appreciated. My delegation represents 7,500 students and our allies represent tens of thousands of students and I feel like we let them down when we are not even able to speak on their behalves at these meetings. Thank you