Obtaining the Floor for Point of Order then Moving the Previous Question

[Guest Peter Deg]

Can a member use a point of order to obtain the floor and then call the previous question?

At a recent large meeting members were to seek recognition by lining up at a microphone per the assemblies rules.  Member A was recognized but before he began to speak was interrupted by Member B who rose from his seat calling for a point of order.  Member B was recognized, came to the microphone  and made the point that debate had gone on for too long.  The chair ruled the point was not well taken. Then Member B moved the Previous Question.  A second was obtained, the chair stated the motion, put it to a vote and with 2/3 in the affirmative the motion passed.

Several people in line were not happy because Member B had "jumped the Queue"- there were several people in line behind Member A waiting to speak. Evidently at least 2/3 of the people were quite happy with this interruption.

If Member B had interrupted to call the previous question, he would have been ignored or reminded that without getting in line his speech was not in order.  However, he obtained the floor properly, right? And "when assigned the floor, a member may use it for any proper purpose" 42.5.   In light of that,  could the chair have ruled the point out of order and NOT stated the motion but directed Member B to find a place in line?

[Weldon Merritt]

IMO, once the chair ruled on the Point of Order, the legitimate purpose for which the member was granted there floor was fulfilled. The member could have appealed the ruling of the chair, but I do not believe that making another motion was a "legitimate purpose" at that time. The chair shield have ruled the motion for the PQ not in order. But it's too late to do anything about it now. A Point of Order about that breach wood have to have been made at that time.

I can't gi8ve you a citation to back up my opinion, as I don't think the situation is directory addressed by RONR, But to me, it seems common sense. Otherwise , there would be a tremendous loophole, by which a member could claim prioroity for one porpoise, achieve that purpose, and then move the Previous Question (or any other desired motion). 

That said, if 2.3 voted in favor, I suspect it would not have been long before someone else would have moved PQ.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with Mr. Merritt’s answer.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/20/2023 at 9:37 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Can a member use a point of order to obtain the floor and then call the previous question?

No.

On 3/20/2023 at 9:37 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

However, he obtained the floor properly, right?

I don't know that I would say that.

The member did rise to a Point of Order, but it seems clear that the member did so under false pretenses, since "The debate has gone on too long" is not a proper Point of Order, let alone one which justifies interruption of a member who has been properly assigned the floor.

Really, I think the chair let Member B off easy by simply ruling the point "not well taken." If I were in the chair, I would have ruled the point out of order, told the member to sit down, and said "The chair reminds the assembly that a Point of Order is used to direct the chair's attention to a breach of the rules, not to express the member's personal view that debate has gone on too long. There are other parliamentary tools for that purpose."

On 3/20/2023 at 9:37 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

And "when assigned the floor, a member may use it for any proper purpose" 42.5.

The full context of the quote is as follows: "When assigned the floor, a member may use it for any proper purpose, or a combination of purposes; for example, although a member may have begun by debating a pending motion, he may conclude by moving any secondary motion, including the Previous Question (16), that is in order at the time." RONR (12th ed.) 42:5

The text is clear, for instance, that a member could speak in debate and conclude by moving the Previous Question. But it is important to note that the context of this quote arises from a situation in which a member obtains general recognition, and does so in the usual manner. The first sentence of the section "Recognition of a Member" provides as follows:

"Before a member in an assembly can make a motion or speak in debate, he must claim the floor by rising and addressing the chair as described in 3:31, and must be recognized by the chair." RONR (12th ed.) 42:2

"To claim the floor, a member rises at his place when no one else has the floor (or goes to a microphone in a large hall), faces the chair, and says, “Mr. President,” or “Mr. Chairman,” or “Madam Chairman,” or whatever is the chair's proper title." RONR (12th ed.) 3:31

But that is not how the member in this situation obtained recognition. He obtained recognition by interrupting the member who had been properly assigned the floor, for the limited purpose of raising a Point of Order. The applicable rules on that matter are discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 42:18-20.

"When a member has been assigned the floor and has begun to speak—unless he begins to discuss a subject when no motion is pending or speaks longer in debate than the rules of the assembly allow—he cannot be interrupted by another member or by the chair except for one of the following purposes, and then only when the urgency of the situation justifies it: ...

c) a Point of Order or the calling of the member who has the floor to order (23, 61)—or the chair's calling this member's attention to the fact that he is failing to observe the rules of speaking (61:10–11),

After a member has been assigned the floor but before he has begun to speak, it is in order to take any of the steps listed above...

If an interruption occurs for any of the reasons listed above, the member who had the floor does not lose it, although he takes his seat while the interrupting matter is being attended to. As soon as the interruption has been disposed of, the chair directs him to rise and proceed by saying, for example, “Mr. Lewis has the floor.”" RONR (12th ed.) 42:18-20, emphasis added

So even if we set aside the fact that what the member raised was not a proper Point of Order, let alone one which justified interrupting a member who had been properly assigned the floor, the fact remains that the rules governing recognition of a member under these circumstances are very different than a member who has obtained general recognition. Member B was recognized for the sole purpose of stating his Point of Order. The member who had the floor "for any proper purpose" was Member A.

In addition to this, there is also the fact that the Previous Question is out of order when another member has the floor. (RONR (12th ed.) 16:5(3)) And as the text above notes, when an interruption occurs, the member who had originally been assigned the floor "does not lose it." So even if 42:5 were applicable in this instance (which I do not believe to be the case), the Previous Question would not be a "proper purpose" in this situation.

What Member B should have done in the circumstances described was to get in line and seek general recognition, at which time he could have moved the Previous Question.

On 3/20/2023 at 10:30 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

The member could have appealed the ruling of the chair

I agree, but unless there are additional facts we are not privy to, I'm not certain what the basis of this Appeal would be.

Edited March 21, 2023 at 11:22 AM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

When rising to a Point of Order, I don't believe the member is assigned the floor.  The chair instructs the member to state the point of order but until the point and any Appeal are disposed of, the interrupted speaker still has the floor, and resumes speaking at that time, unless the parliamentary situation has substantially changed.

This is like any situation when debate is underway, yet a member rises and addresses the chair.  The chair does not assign the floor to the member, but instead asks, "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?"   And if that purpose is to make a motion that may not interrupt a speaker, the chair will not "recognize", but will instruct the member to be seated.  The only difference is that when a member rises to a Point of Order, the chair knows the member's intentions in advance.

In the situation described, the chair erred in stating the motion for the Previous Question, as the member was never recognized for that purpose.  Furthermore, I don't believe the chair must entertain an Appeal, since there are not two reasonable opinions that any breach of the rules occurred, except possibly by the member who interrupted.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 at 04:24 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with the others above that the member making the Point of Order has limited recognition that does not extend to making a motion for the Previous Question. I agree with the others that the chair erred when he stated the question on the motion for the Previous Question.

[Guest Peter Deg]

Thank you so much. I appreciate the distinction between obtaining the floor for any and all purposes and obtaining the floor for the limited purpose of raising a point of order.  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/21/2023 at 5:35 PM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Thank you so much. I appreciate the distinction between obtaining the floor for any and all purposes and obtaining the floor for the limited purpose of raising a point of order.  

 Raising a Point of Order is one of the motions that can be made without obtaining the floor.  And when the chair recognizes the member, it is not for the purpose of making motions or speaking in debate, so I would say the member has not obtained the floor within the meaning described in 3:30.

Quote

3:30
Before a member in an assembly can make a motion or speak in debate—the parliamentary name given to any form of discussion of the merits of a motion—he must obtain the floor; that is, he must be recognized by the chair as having the exclusive right to be heard at that time. (For the parliamentary motions that can be made without obtaining the floor, See pages t44–t45.) The chair must recognize any member who seeks the floor while entitled to it.  [emphasis in original]