Call the Previous Question Before Debate Starts

[Guest A Brown]

Is it in order for someone to Call the Question immediately after the Main Motion is made, in essence not even allowing debate in the first place?  In our case, I suppose it is a moot point because the Previous Question passed, but I just felt like it was in poor form.  

[Guest Zev]

Normal procedure allows the maker of the motion to speak first if he rises to seek recognition after the chairman states the question. If he ended his speech by moving the Previous Question then that was his prerogative. If he sought recognition and the chairman instead recognized someone else and the "interloper" moved the Previous Question, then I would consider such an act worthy of a Point Of Order. If the chairman then repeats such an act I would then consider a motion to censure the chair.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest A Brown said:

Is it in order for someone to Call the Question immediately after the Main Motion is made, in essence not even allowing debate in the first place?  . . . . 

Yes, it is. However, as Guest Zev pointed out, the member who made the original motion has the right to be recognized and to speak first on his motion if he seeks recognition. If he chose not to speak first, then it was proper for the chair to recognize someone else who could immediately move the previous question.

However, if the member  who made the motion was seeking recognition to speak on it and the chair instead recognized a different member who moved the previous question,  that was inappropriate and would have been subject to a point of order if one had been raised. The member who made the original motion should have immediately raised a point of order that he was entitled to preference in recognition and wanted to speak on his motion.

That type of breach does not constitute a continuing breach and what was done is done and it is too late to do anything about it now. 

Edited October 21, 2018 at 06:15 AM by Richard Brown
Added a few words to the first and second paragraphs

[Guest A Brown]

Thank you.  The proposal to Amend the Constitution (main motion) came from the board, so it sounds like the person who immediately called the Previous Question was in order.  Unfortunately, it didn't allow for debate.  But I guess if enough people had a problem with it, the Previous Question wouldn't have passed, and it did.

[Richard Brown]

I just deleted my response as I thought we were in the discussion about the bylaw amendment that got reconsidered.

I think you have it right with your post immediately above, except that it is not proper to "call for the question" or to "call the question".  The proper motion is, "I move the previous question".  It requires a second, is not debatable and requires a two thirds vote for adoption.

Edited October 21, 2018 at 06:33 PM by Richard Brown
Deleted original post... thought it was in a different thread

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I just deleted my response as I thought we were in the discussion about the bylaw amendment that got reconsidered.

I think you have it right with your post immediately above, except that it is not proper to "call for the question" or to "call the question".  The proper motion is, "I move the previous question".  It requires a second, is not debatable and requires a two thirds vote for adoption.

Colloquial forms such as “I call for the question” are acceptable, although the same rules are used. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 202.

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Colloquial forms such as “I call for the question” are acceptable, although the same rules are used. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 202.

You are correct, although it is not the preferred usage.  The problem with that usage is that so many people.... and presiding officers.... are not  aware that is a non-standard way of stating the motion for the previous question and can lead to it being improperly handled.  For the benefit of those who don't have RONR, were is what it says about it on page 202, emphasizing that care must be taken to see that proper procedure is followed regardless of whether the member attempting to  close debate uses non-standard terminology:

"Further Rules and Explanation
EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for [or "call"] the question" or "I move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in nonstandard form, and it is subject to all of the rules in this section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of members' rights of debate."