Calling for the question

[Chris Harrison]

There are other methods of closing debate without keeping 1/3 of voting members from speaking to an issue.

What are some of the methods? I can't think of any.

[Josh Martin]

Previous question cannot be used in commitees or small boards.

That is not quite correct. It is true that the Previous Question is not allowed at all in committees (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 483, lines 19-22), however, RONR only says that it generally should not be allowed in small boards. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 470, lines 28-30)

AND cannot be used if by-laws state that all members may speak to an issue.

Provisions in the Bylaws would have to be worded in such a way as to create a right for an individual member (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 255, lines 13-15), since otherwise it would be in the nature of a rule of order and suspendable by a 2/3 vote. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 22-27) But yes, the Bylaws certainly could contain provisions that would limit or even eliminate the assembly's ability to use the Previous Question. There are no suggestions from the original poster that the organization's Bylaws contain such a provision.

Why is it such a stretch that it should no be used until each voting member has spoken at least once???

Because many assemblies are of such a size and/or debate so many topics at a given meeting that there simply is not enough time to allow every member to speak once for up to ten minutes on every question. Perhaps your proposal would be reasonable for a small club, but it would cause a large convention to grind to a halt. RONR is designed for assemblies of all sizes.

Rules that limit debate keep discussion from being repetitive and going on too long.

I assure you from personal experience that it is entirely possible for discussion to become repetitive and/or go on too long before every member has had a chance to speak.

Why does a Chair sometime use unanimous consent before ending debate where if one member wants the item debated, they can have it.

Because unanimous consent is often an effective method of expediting business (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 51, lines 23-26), and the members are often agreeable to letting someone else speak if they wish to. But not always, thus the method for a 2/3 vote.

It is probably up to each organization to determine a fair application of previous question.

And under the rules in RONR, every assembly is free to do so on a case-by-case basis. Each member, by his vote, determines whether he believes the Previous Question is fair in a particular instance. Assemblies are also free to adopt special rules of order or Bylaws to modify the rules for the previous question.

IMO, leave it out.

I imagine that your experience must be limited to small, peacable assemblies to make such a bold suggestion.

There are other methods of closing debate without keeping 1/3 of voting members from speaking to an issue.

Possibly. But that is beyond the scope of this forum.

[Guest paul]

to JM. from Paulc6. 9 years as an elected official on a large school board. 12 years as a Toastmaster, plus being an RP and a well educated person on English. Of course this is the proper forum to discuss interpretation of Roberts. Read from Pages 254 thru 255 on RULES THAT CANNOT BE SUSPENDED I believe it the individual has a basic right to speak.

Also, as to suspending debate any member or the Chair can suggest it is time to take a vote and if there is no objection, the assembly can. If there is one objection, they cannot. There are methods of deferring/referring debate. As to previous question, I believe that Roberts is referring to a situation where no individual's right(s) is being infringed. That may be after every voting member has had a chance to speak at least once. I am sure that the wording is meant to protect a basic right and that speaking in a debate is a basic right.

This has been a worthwhile discussion. I believe it helps to debate interpretations of Roberts. Thank you all. Paul

[Weldon Merritt]

I believe it helps to debate interpretations of Roberts.

Yes, but when your interpretation is directly contradicted by the plain language of RONR, you might want to rethink your interpretation. Based on your past repsonses, this is probably a futile effort, but I refer you to RONR, p. 194, ll. 15-19: "[Previous Question] always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motion(s) to which it is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate." (Italics in original; bolding added.) Note that it says, "two-thirds" vote, not "unanimous consent." If your interpreatation were corerct, PQ could never be ordered without unanimous consent. In fact, there would be no need for the motion at all.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, but when your interpretation is directly contradicted by the plain language of RONR, you might want to rethink your interpretation. Based on your past repsonses, this is probably a futile effort, but I refer you to RONR, p. 194, ll. 15-19: "[Previous Question] always requires a second and a two-thirds vote, taken separately from and before the vote(s) on the motion(s) to which it is applied, to shut off debate against the will of even one member who wishes to speak and has not exhausted his right to debate." (Italics in original; bolding added.) Note that it says, "two-thirds" vote, not "unanimous consent." If your interpreatation were corerct, PQ could never be ordered without unanimous consent. In fact, there would be no need for the motion at all.

...this is probably a futile effort...

Uh-huh.

[Dan Honemann]

Uh-huh.

This thread demonstrates (as so many others do) that being an RP, or a PRP, or a CPP, or whatever, has little meaning at at all.

Edited May 18, 2015 at 06:46 PM by Daniel H. Honemann

[Rob Elsman]

This thread demonstrates (as so many others do) that being an RP, or a PRP, or a CPP, or whatever, has little meaning at at all.

...has little meaning at at all...

While you're fascinated with all your new buttons, try the "Edit" one.

[Dan Honemann]

While you're fascinated with all your new buttons, try the "Edit" one.

Edit my own response? There was something wrong with it?

[Rob Elsman]

Edit my own response? There was something wrong with it?

Nah, it's fine fine.

[J. J.]

to JM. from Paulc6. 9 years as an elected official on a large school board. 12 years as a Toastmaster, plus being an RP and a well educated person on English. Of course this is the proper forum to discuss interpretation of Roberts. Read from Pages 254 thru 255 on RULES THAT CANNOT BE SUSPENDED I believe it the individual has a basic right to speak.

If that were true, then the motion to limit debate would null and void and the Previous Question would be out of order. There is no right basic right of an individual member to speak.

[hmtcastle]

Edit my own response? There was something wrong with it?

Your reply appears within the "quote" box. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)

[Dan Honemann]

Your reply appears within the "quote" box. (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Yes, it does, but that doesn't answer my question.

[Chris Harrison]

Yes, it does, but that doesn't answer my question.

This thread demonstrates (as so many others do) that being an RP, or a PRP, or a CPP, or whatever, has little meaning at at all.

See it now?

I guess that is what the lawyers might call "double speak".

[hmtcastle]

Yes, it does, but that doesn't answer my question.

I assumed that's what Mr. Elsman was referring to when he suggested the use of the "Edit" button, since he certainly couldn't have been referring to the content. But who knows.

[hmtcastle]

See it now?

Well, that's what I get for assuming.

[Dan Honemann]

See it now?

Yeah. I'm pretty quick on the uptake, don't you think?

[Ann Rempel]

I would like to point out that in order to claim NAP credentials, one must be a member of NAP.

[Dan Honemann]

I would like to point out that in order to claim NAP credentials, one must be a member of NAP.

Well, this is certainly true, but I'm not sure what it is getting at at.

[SaintCad]

This seems to happen much too often. Self-proclaiemd experts could get away with a lot less if other members simply had the gumption to say, "Show me the rule."

You also need a chair to do the right thing. Serving as a Parliamentarian for a school council, we had a self-proclaimed expert (she wasn't) claim what rules were. The chair rarely asked for my advice and ignored my points of order. The principal said we should disregard parliamentary law as "it gets in the way of collaboration" so apparently I was the bad guy trying to block discussion.

[Rob Elsman]

You also need a chair to do the right thing. Serving as a Parliamentarian for a school council, we had a self-proclaimed expert (she wasn't) claim what rules were. The chair rarely asked for my advice and ignored my points of order. The principal said we should disregard parliamentary law as "it gets in the way of collaboration" so apparently I was the bad guy trying to block discussion.

Well, a parliamentarian has no business raising a Point of Order while performing his duties if the president chooses to ignore his advice.

[Guest Eureka]

When calling for the question, does both the call itself require a 2/3 vote and then another vote is taken for the previous point of discussion or does it just close discussion and the vote is taken on the item itself? There has been confusion on this in our meetings.

[Josh Martin]

25 minutes ago, Guest Eureka said:

When calling for the question, does both the call itself require a 2/3 vote and then another vote is taken for the previous point of discussion or does it just close discussion and the vote is taken on the item itself? There has been confusion on this in our meetings.

The motion for the Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote for adoption. If adopted, a vote is then immediately taken on the pending motion. If it is not adopted, debate continues on the pending motion.

For future reference, it is generally best on this forum to post a new question as a new topic, even if an existing topic appears similar.

Edited December 2, 2020 at 03:42 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

9 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

For future reference, it is generally best on this forum to post a new question as a new topic, even if an existing topic appears similar.

But at least the new forum software helpfully notes "10 years later …" 🙂

[Shmuel Gerber]

10 hours ago, Guest Eureka said:

When calling for the question, does both the call itself require a 2/3 vote and then another vote is taken for the previous point of discussion or does it just close discussion and the vote is taken on the item itself? There has been confusion on this in our meetings.

I don't understand the two choices you're offering.

[J. J.]

10 hours ago, Guest Eureka said:

When calling for the question, does both the call itself require a 2/3 vote and then another vote is taken for the previous point of discussion or does it just close discussion and the vote is taken on the item itself? There has been confusion on this in our meetings.

If I understand, assume that there is a main motion is pending.  Someone, after being recognized, moves the Previous Question, which is seconded.  At that point, the chair puts the motion the Previous Question; it requires a 2/3 vote.  If adopted, the chair would the puts the main motion.  The main motion would require a majority to adopt.