Previous Question on divided question

[Guest J. J.]

I would say B would not be subject to PQ, because B is not "immediately pending (p. 190, l. 26)."

J. J."

[Guest Paul McClintock]

JJ, per the p. 190 citation you gave, PQ "Can be applied to any immediately pending debatable or amendable motion; to an entire series of pending debatable or amendable motions; and to any consecutive part of such a series, beginning with the immedia"

[Guest J. J.]

Okay you've lost me on the sequence. could you graph it out a bit?

J. J."

[Guest Paul McClintock]

> If a main motion is divided to parts A and B, and while A is pending and amendment Amd-A is pending the assemblies order the Previous Question on all pending motions.

> graph it out

1. Main motion: to commend Paul and JJ

2. D"

[Guest JDStackpole]

Jumping in...

I don't think the book covers this one explicitly.

However by analogy... if PQ is ordered on a resolution, debate and amendment is still allowed on the "Whereas" clauses of the resolution.

By analogy, the"

[Guest J. J.]

I don't think "To commend JJ" is the pending question. They seem to be two separate main motions after division (p. 261, l. 20-25; p. 266, l. 9-11).

The motions subject to PQ would be, in order:

1. Move to amend: strike out Pa"

[Guest Trina]

> 1. Main motion: to commend Paul and JJ

2. Divide the question; adopted. <

This example sounds like something that might be divided at the call of a single member. In that case, in particular, it would seem inappropriate for the assemb"

[Guest Rob Elsman]

"...to be considered and voted on as if they were distinct questions...", RONR (10th ed.), p. 261, ll. 23, 24, tends to make me think that the Previous Question, in this situation, applies only to Amd-A and A."

[Guest Paul McClintock]

Thanks, all, for your insights. It's nice to see some agreement on a gray area.

In some sense, B is pending: it immediately comes up after A is disposed of, just like A immediately comes up after Amd-A is disposed of. Hence it seems somewhat re"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

Paul, I hesitate to respond since I'm not at home (and thus can't do the kind of looking at stuff that I ought to do before responding), but I do agree with those who say that a motion to order the previous question on all pending questions would not appl"

[Guest Kim Goldsworthy]

Paul,

If you need a parliamentary theory to justify the separation, then, the way *I* think about it, is this way.

---

To Divide the Question has the effect of creating a "super" "special order" or "general order.&quot"

[Guest Rob Elsman]

There's not a shred of evidence in RONR to think that any of this is true. I find it a little goofy, myself."

[Guest J. J.]

However, the analogy works.

J. J."

[Guest John M.]

>>This example sounds like something that might be divided at the call of a single member.<<

A motion to commend two different individuals does not seem to be the type of motion which could be divided at the call of a single member. T"

[Guest George Mervosh]

I'm with the crew who agrees with you and the others on your first paragraph, Dan.

Are you back home to look at paragraph #2 in your answer? It's hard to see how the answer is anything other than, yes."

[Guest Dan Honemann]

Hey, I just got back last night! :-)

"

[Guest Dan Honemann]

...but on the face of it, it just plain must be the case that both parts of the divided motion to amend will be under the order for the previous question."

[Guest George Mervosh]

We Greeks are an impatient lot. :-)

Thanks, yes, some things just have to be..."

[Guest Ann Rempel]

I have always thought that the PQ on all pending motions would not apply to Motion B because B is not pending at that point. Only A and its amendment are under consideration or pending. At least that makes sense to me. :)"