Made the motion. Can I call the question?

[Guest Matthew]

Can an elected official call the question on a topic that they moved to approve?

[George Mervosh]

Can an elected official call the question on a topic that they moved to approve?

 

No rule in RONR prohibits it, assuming he's doing it properly.  See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#11

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Can an elected official call the question on a topic that they moved to approve?

Is there an implied question there?

Are you asking if they can call the question (move the Previous Question) before anyone (or everyone) has debated the motion?

The answer to that implied question is, "Yes." It is possible.

[Ann Rempel]

Is there an implied question there?

Are you asking if they can call the question (move the Previous Question) before anyone (or everyone) has debated the motion?

The answer to that implied question is, "Yes." It is possible.

 

However, the member cannot combine the two motions: main motion and the previous question.

[Guest Zev]

However, the member cannot combine the two motions: main motion and the previous question.

I respectfully disagree.

 

When the purpose of a motion to Suspend the Rules is to permit the making of another motion, and the adoption of the first motion would obviously be followed by adoption of the second, the two motions can be combined, as in "to suspend the rules and take from the table (34) the question relating to ..." The foregoing is an exception to the general rule that no member can make two motions at the same time except with the consent of the assembly -- unanimous consent being required if the two motions are unrelated (see also pp. 110, 274-75).

I realize the first sentence does not apply to this case but the second one might. From the information provided I do not know if the proponent tried to move the Previous Question at the same time he moved the initial motion or whether he waited till after some debate had transpired.

[Timothy]

I respectfully disagree.

 

I realize the first sentence does not apply to this case but the second one might. From the information provided I do not know if the proponent tried to move the Previous Question at the same time he moved the initial motion or whether he waited till after some debate had transpired.

 

You should also look at page 64, "Subsidiary motions...are always applied to another motion while it is pending." (Emphasis mine) 

[Richard Brown]

However, the member cannot combine the two motions: main motion and the previous question.

 

Ann is correct, but doggone if I cannot find the citation at the moment.  I know the rule is in RONR somewhere. :-)

 

I'll keep looking.  This is frustrating.

 

Edited to add:  I didn't see Timothy Fish's post above (No 6) when I started typing this.  That may be the answer, because a motion isn't really before the assembly until it has been seconded and stated by the chair. 

[Bruce Lages]

I don't think a specific reference that 'combining a main motion and a motion for the previous motion is prohibited' is really necessary. Expanding a little on what Mr. Fish said - when a member gains the chair's recognition and states his motion, that motion is not yet before the assembly. It still requires a second (in most cases) and must be stated by the chair before it becomes the pending question. It stands to reason that at that point a motion for the previous question is in order. Of course the answer to the original poster's question is yes, and the motion maker can even move the previous question immediately before any debate since he has the right to speak first on his motion.

[Guest Zev]

Now I am going to disagree with all four of you.

When you find the appropriate reference please post it here since I cannot find it.
 

The foregoing is an exception to the general rule that no member can make two motions at the same time except with the consent of the assembly -- unanimous consent being required if the two motions are unrelated (see also pp. 110, 274-75).

Also, if you do not mind, please explain to me what your interpretation of the quote on page 262 means. Do you agree that this is an exception or not?

[Dan Honemann]

Now I am going to disagree with all four of you.

When you find the appropriate reference please post it here since I cannot find it.

 

Also, if you do not mind, please explain to me what your interpretation of the quote on page 262 means. Do you agree that this is an exception or not?

 

Slow down a bit.

 

When someone posts a statement in this forum to the effect that something cannot be done (as in post #4), he or she usually means that it cannot be done because doing so will violate some rule in RONR. The rule involved may or may not be a rule which can be suspended, but whether it is or is not a rule which can be suspended is an entirely different question. To raise this question of suspendibility (as was done in post #4) introduces an entirely different question, and generally should not be done since it often leads to confusion (as it seems to be doing here).

 

Now, in this particular instance, I suggest that what is said on lines 6-8 on page 262 of RONR, 11th ed., is more relevant and informative than what is said on lines 13-17, but if you want to jump into this deep water you should start a new topic.