Passing a motion while debate is in progress

[Guest Shenandoah]

A motion was made and seconded. There were several points that I felt needed discussion and clarification with this item which was an alcohol and drug policy for employees. Other members were more accepting of the policy; it appeared that I was the only one who had anything to say. I was presenting several points before others called out to call the question. It appeared there wasn’t any interest from others in pursuing the debate. At some point somebody called out: “Call for the question.” I indicated that I had other concerns, but the chairman called for the question. The motion passed. I remained silent; for many reasons I neither voted for nor against in this voice vote. Further, please note that there was only one vote taken: the one for the “call the question”. I thought that this vote would have only ended the debate; to me the vote on the motion was never taken (i.e., call for the previous question?). Immediately after the meeting was adjourned, I spoke with the chairman and expressed my disdain over the way he had cut me off and not allowed me to present my concerns. I told him that I felt that it was rude and unprofessional to cut off debate when I still had unresolved issues to discuss.

After reviewing the RONR, it appears to me that the motion was never passed. They voted to cut off debate, but they never took a second vote on the original motion. Am I correct? And, at this point, am I correct that the original motion was never voted on and approved?

[Guest Edgar]

After reviewing the RONR, it appears to me that the motion was never passed. They voted to cut off debate, but they never took a second vote on the original motion. Am I correct? And, at this point, am I correct that the original motion was never voted on and approved?

Sounds like it. See also FAQ #11.

[Guest Shenandoah]

Thank you, Edgar. I referred to FAQ 11 and basically thought that two votes were needed, but I have never had this situation arise before. Most meetings allow for the discussion to proceed to a conclusion before a vote is taken. This is the first time that I have been in a discussion when the vote was taken while debate was still taking place. I was not sure if I needed to make my thoughts known at the meeting at the conclusion of the vote. I talked with the chairman after the meeting, and he suggested that I send him an email with my concerns (I did this the next day - 6 pages worth!). If any body else is reading this and can identify if I committed a procedural error - i.e., something that would suggest that the original motion passed because I did or did not do something else (e.g., object strenuously), please post it. I would like to be correct before I go back and inform them that the policy is still not in place!

[Gary Novosielski]

A motion was made and seconded. There were several points that I felt needed discussion and clarification with this item which was an alcohol and drug policy for employees. Other members were more accepting of the policy; it appeared that I was the only one who had anything to say. I was presenting several points before others called out to call the question. It appeared there wasn’t any interest from others in pursuing the debate. At some point somebody called out: “Call for the question.” I indicated that I had other concerns, but the chairman called for the question. The motion passed. I remained silent; for many reasons I neither voted for nor against in this voice vote. Further, please note that there was only one vote taken: the one for the “call the question”. I thought that this vote would have only ended the debate; to me the vote on the motion was never taken (i.e., call for the previous question?). Immediately after the meeting was adjourned, I spoke with the chairman and expressed my disdain over the way he had cut me off and not allowed me to present my concerns. I told him that I felt that it was rude and unprofessional to cut off debate when I still had unresolved issues to discuss.

After reviewing the RONR, it appears to me that the motion was never passed. They voted to cut off debate, but they never took a second vote on the original motion. Am I correct? And, at this point, am I correct that the original motion was never voted on and approved?

You shouldn't have waited until after the meeting. You should have raised a Point of Order during the meeting. And it's important to make certain you know exactly what is being voted on in every case.

The chair should make it clear, but if it's not crystal clear, ask.

Cutting off debate requires a 2/3 vote, after which the original motion is voted on in whatever shape it's in at the time..

Additional options are a motion to Postpone the question to the next meeting, if you think the time would be useful, or to Refer it to a committee, if your board uses standing committees or would consider appointing a special committee to study the matter.

As things stand, it may be that the chair failed to put the motion to a vote, in which case it would be Unfinished Business for the next meeting, or he may have failed to put the motion for the Previous Question ("calling" the question) to a vote. Some chairs believe incorrectly that merely calling out is permissible (it is not) or that doing so ends debate without a vote (it does not). Either of those would have been open to a Point of Order, at the time, but not at this point. I can't tell from here what the situation was or is.

That's why it is necessary to know precisely what is being voted on, and to keep track, if the chair is not going to do his job (facilitating discussion) properly.

If someone "calls out" for the question, it is improper for the chair to acknowledge him (except to reprimand him) while you have the floor. If the chair is incompetent, it is up to you to defend your right to the floor when interrupted. If the chair attempts to take a vote on "calling" the question, you can raise a point of order that "the motion for the previous question may not interrupt someone who has the floor." You are entitled to take as much time as the rules allow before relinquishing the floor.

[Guest Shenandoah]

Thank you, Wonk - nicely explained! We do not have a parliamentarian - most meetings are very straight-forward. I greatly appreciate your comments!

[Guest Edgar]

We do not have a parliamentarian - most meetings are very straight-forward.

Those two facts are not unrelated.

[Guest Shenandoah]

Well spoken, Edgar! A fine double entendre - we'll probably have a parliamentarian and more complex meetings in the future! Thank you for helping!