Newbie question.

[Maui Mark]

If a member has already spoken twice during debate on a motion, can he later gain the floor to move the previous question since that is a subsiderary motion and technically not debate on the main motion? 

[Richard Brown]

Yes, he can.

Edited to add: he can also move the previous question at the conclusion of his remarks in debate

Edited November 12, 2018 at 12:37 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Maui Mark]

Thanks so much for the help.

So if he can, how does he obtain the floor when the chair won't recognize him because he has already spoken twice? Point of order doesn't seem right, since the chair is making a decision to ignore this person based on knowledge at hand and the chair cannot read his mind to know why he wants the floor. So the chair just continues to call on other people who  are just reinforcing other people's points using slightly different words. Time to bring this to a vote and move on. Can he stand and say something like, "Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion. Will you recognize me?" Or would that be out of order? 

[Richard Brown]

First off, the chair should recognize him. If the chair knows that he has already spoken twice, the chair might inquire "for what reason does the member seek recognition?"

But if the chair continues to ignore the member, the member can and should raise a point of order that he has been seeking recognition for the purpose of making a proper motion which is not subject to the two speech rule. He could even say I rise to move the previous question which is a proper motion even after having spoken twice in debate.

If the chair rules that doing so would be out of water order, he may appeal the ruling of the chair.

Edited November 12, 2018 at 02:46 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction as indicated. Changed water to order

[Chris Harrison]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

If the chair rules that doing so would be out of water...

Sounds like the Chair is a small fish in a large ocean. 

[Richard Brown]

30 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

Sounds like the Chair is a small fish in a large ocean. 

LOL ! That's what happens when I use voice to text on my cell phone! Fixed. 

[Maui Mark]

"I rise to move the previous question." That's it! That's the one! Many mahalos for the advice. And yes, he is an annoying little fish in a mighty ocean of control issues. Many thanks again.

[Richard Brown]

49 minutes ago, Maui Mark said:

"I rise to move the previous question." That's it! That's the one! Many mahalos for the advice. And yes, he is an annoying little fish in a mighty ocean of control issues. Many thanks again.

Good! Hope it helps! Note of caution, though. Be prepared to appeal from the ruling of the chair and have as many fellow members as possible lined up to support you. You need at least one other member to second your motion. Catching people by surprise rarely works. Be prepared to order your appeal based on Robert's Rules.

[Guest Nathan Zook]

I have been in organizations where the chair always asks for the reason that a member seeks the floor, unless there is a formal signalling system in place to indicate if a member wishes to speak for or against a motion, or for some other cause.  Rather than a delay, it actually seems to keep things moving clearly.

[Richard Brown]

11 hours ago, Guest Nathan Zook said:

I have been in organizations where the chair always asks for the reason that a member seeks the floor, unless there is a formal signalling system in place to indicate if a member wishes to speak for or against a motion, or for some other cause.  Rather than a delay, it actually seems to keep things moving clearly.

It is quite common, and appropriate, for the chair to ask "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?"  I would say it would be unusual, and probably not appropriate, for the chair to ALWAYS ask every member "For what purpose do you seek recognition"?   It is, however, proper for the chair to ask members if they intend to speak for or against the pending motion so that he can alternate pro-and con speakers as much as possible as recommended by RONR.

[Gary Novosielski]

At times when it would not appear to be in order to seek recognition on a pending question, or to make a new main motion, the chair can and should ask "For what purpose...?"  It is better than simply recognizing the member and then having to interrupt when it becomes apparent that the speaker is off on some tangent that's inappropriate to the parliamentary situation.

In the middle of debate on a motion, it would presumably be unnecessary, as it may safely be assumed that those seeking recognition are doing so in support of or opposition to the pending question, or to offer an amendment or make some other appropriate motion.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

At times when it would not appear to be in order to seek recognition on a pending question, or to make a new main motion, the chair can and should ask "For what purpose...?"  It is better than simply recognizing the member and then having to interrupt when it becomes apparent that the speaker is off on some tangent that's inappropriate to the parliamentary situation.

 

Interesting. I spent several years as the chair of a board which met monthly, which also involved chairing the annual convention, and chaired a rather contentious committee, and I think I might have used the phrase "for what purpose does the member rise?" 2 or 3 times. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On a small board, it might be considered an unnecessary formality,  I rarely used it myself in that case.  But in a larger assembly, in situations where the chair is not clear what the purpose might be, I think it's useful.

[Nathan Zook]

The local custom was to adopt special rules that required alternation in debate, and to permit only one speech per motion.  Thus, even during general debate, "for what purpose" was relevant to keep the rules while still permitting a member who had already spoken ready access to their rights to make a subsidiary motion.

Every body has its own history.  What works fine for one group might sound excessive or rude to another.  In my particular case, the county party had gone through a period of more than a decade of acrimony (before I entered) which was followed by a decade of fiercely contested actions (which I participated in).

In a less contentious body, I would not be surprised if such formalities would give offence.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm trying to imagine a situation where the chair's inquiry, "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?" would give offense.  I am having no success

[Atul Kapur]

One example might be a non-contentious group that is not sophisticated in the ways of RONR where the use of the phrase may be seen as trying to intimidate the member seeking recognition.