Speaker speaks to his motion, then calls to question

[trsyeager]

During a recent meeting, of whether or not to keep a person in a place of position, the chair allowed a member of the quorum to speak in favor of this person. Immediately afterwards, the same person called to adjourn the meeting. Hands were still raised to speak their turn to ask questions or for discussion. The chair took a vote to adjourn, it passed, and the issue of whether this person should keep her job was never addressed. FYI: A three page document of offenses was passed-out at the same meeting.

Can they adjourn like that? This person is still in this postition and people are really upset. Wasn't the call to question Out of Order since 1) the person spoke, then called to question 2) No one else got a chance to speak because the meeting was adjourned.

[Chris Harrison]

Wasn't the call to question Out of Order since 1) the person spoke, then called to question

No rule in RONR prohibits this.

2) No one else got a chance to speak because the meeting was adjourned.

Well, others could have spoken if the motion to Adjourn was voted down. But they adopted the motion so they need to live with their decisions.

[George Mervosh]

The principle, as stated in RONR is this: "A member may both speak in debate and conclude by offering a secondary motion, which is a particular application of the principle that a member having been recognized for any legitimate purpose has the floor for all legitimate purposes."

Therefore a member may conclude his speech with a motion to adjourn (not "called to question" as you've phrased it). As Chris noted, since it passed it appears a majority are content that no action be taken, for now. The people who are upset need to get more like-minded members to attend future meetings to achieve their goal.

[Guest Edgar]

Wasn't the call to question Out of Order since 1) the person spoke, then called to question 2) No one else got a chance to speak because the meeting was adjourned.

You may be confusing (or conflating) calling the Previous Question (see FAQ #11) with a motion to adjourn.

[Sean Hunt]

It's worth noting that at the next meeting (if it comes in roughly the next month), the motion is unfinished business and re,mains pending, meaning it has to be dealt with before any new business.

Edit: I meant three months (a "quarterly time interval") rather than a month.

[Guest Cakelady]

So are you saying that when another main motion is on the floor, a secondary motion to Adjourn (a Privileged motion?) may be made and passed, thereby just ending any activity on the previous main motion? Does the first main motion just die or is it still pending, in which case it is the first order of business at the next meeting?

[J. J.]

So are you saying that when another main motion is on the floor, a secondary motion to Adjourn (a Privileged motion?) may be made and passed, thereby just ending any activity on the previous main motion? Does the first main motion just die or is it still pending, in which case it is the first order of business at the next meeting?

Yes, if the next meeting is held within the quarterly time interval, it will be taken up under unfinished business (pp. 236-7).

[Gary Novosielski]

Can they adjourn like that? This person is still in this postition and people are really upset. Wasn't the call to question Out of Order since 1) the person spoke, then called to question 2) No one else got a chance to speak because the meeting was adjourned.

Are you confusing the motion to Adjourn with the motion for the Previous Question? Or are you unclear what actually happened?

To answer your question, yes--they can adjourn like that. The motion to Adjourn can be made at nearly any time, and there doesn't appear to be any rule violated by the way this was handled.

If many people were upset that they didn't get a chance to speak, I presume that they would have voted No on the motion to adjourn, but were outvoted. That's the way it goes.