Previous Question Before Debate Has Occurred

[Guest Phil M]

I believe that a call for the previous question (close debate) is out of order if there has not been allowance for at least some debate to occur. Certainly RRNR says a maker must be allowed to address their motion, but could the very next speaker call for the previous question? Or indeed, the first speaker if the maker chooses not to speak?

[Dan Honemann]

I believe that a call for the previous question (close debate) is out of order if there has not been allowance for at least some debate to occur. Certainly RRNR says a maker must be allowed to address their motion, but could the very next speaker call for the previous question? Or indeed, the first speaker if the maker chooses not to speak?

No rule in RONR prohibits a member who has been assigned the floor from moving the Previous Question simply because little or no debate has occurred.

"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 ..., that is in order at the time." (RONR, 10th ed., p. 365-66).

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I believe that a call for the previous question (close debate) is out of order if there has not been allowance for at least some debate to occur.

Wrong. That is not The Book.

It is theoretically possible for the motion, Previous Question, to be moved immediately, without anyone ever taking the opportunity for debating.

Certainly RONR says a maker must be allowed to address their motion, ...

If it is a main motion or a debatable motion.

... but could the very next speaker call for the previous question?

Or indeed, the first speaker if the maker chooses not to speak?

Hey, it is even tighter than that.

The original maker of the motion, after he speaks for up to ten minutes, is free to close his debate with a motion to close debate (Previous Motion).

RONR allows for an all-in-one motion, where the maker of the motion simultaneously (a.) proposes an action; (b.) move to have zero debate.

But the cited text by DHH (page 365-366) allows a separation of the speakers debate time to intervene between the two ends, too.

So, it is a a MYTH that the maker of the motion cannot demand the Previous Question.

[Dan Honemann]

So, it is a a MYTH that the maker of the motion cannot demand the Previous Question.

Well, it certainly is no myth that he cannot demand the Previous Question.

[Gary Novosielski]

I was once a member of a delegate assembly whose one standing rule was:

The previous question may be moved immediately upon gaining recognition, and at no other time.

I can only assume that, in the past, moving the previous question at the end of a lengthy speech had became a common practice that irritated others. Although perfectly proper according to RONR, it does have the effect of communicating, "I've had my say, now everyone else be quiet."

This standing rule had interesting effects of its own upon debate, but I remember it well because it was their only standing rule. Otherwise they were straight RONR all the way, at least in all matters that affected debate. I guess of all the things to be upset about, this one point became quite an emotional issue.

[Dominator]

Would it be a good strategy to do this if you wanted to block any other previous question motions on the same question?

I ask this assuming that the previous question, once lost, cannot be brought up again for the same question. If it's lost as a subsidiary to the main motion, it would allow debate until the room was silent on debate.

Am I accurate?

[jstackpo]

No. p. 193 & p. 329.

After a defeat of PQ it can be reconsidered (in very limited circumstances) or renewed (if those "limited circumstances" are exceeded).

[Gary Novosielski]

Would it be a good strategy to do this if you wanted to block any other previous question motions on the same question?

I ask this assuming that the previous question, once lost, cannot be brought up again for the same question. If it's lost as a subsidiary to the main motion, it would allow debate until the room was silent on debate.

Am I accurate?

No.

While it's true that the previous question cannot be moved again immediately, it can be renewed after some substantive debate or action has taken place that may have changed members' views on the question of cutting off debate.

[Dominator]

No.

While it's true that the previous question cannot be moved again immediately, it can be renewed after some substantive debate or action has taken place that may have changed members' views on the question of cutting off debate.

That sounds very open ended considering a single debate participator may have changed the members views on the question of cutting off debate.

From p. 329:

The subsidiary motion...for the Previous Question...can be renewed whenever progress in business or debate has been such that they are no longer practically the same questions.

Would this mean that to renew a PQ on a main motion, the main would have to be amended first to change the question? Past this, it seems to me like a lawful renewal is in a grey area. Would the admissibility of PQ (in cases that views may be changed) be left to the judgment of the chair?

[jstackpo]

No, and No.

"progress in ... debate" is just that -- talk.

I suppose the chair could rule that debate hasn't been progressive enough (whatever that might mean) so PQ was out of order. But that ruling could be appealed.

But why bother - PQ, being itself undebatable, takes maybe five seconds to process (unless the vote is close). So just do it and get it out of the way. Probably take more time for the chair to explain how an appeal is managed, anyway.

[Tim Wynn]

That sounds very open ended considering a single debate participator may have changed the members views on the question of cutting off debate.

A single person could have that effect.

From p. 329:

The subsidiary motion...for the Previous Question...can be renewed whenever progress in business or debate has been such that they are no longer practically the same questions.

Would this mean that to renew a PQ on a main motion, the main would have to be amended first to change the question?

No.

Past this, it seems to me like a lawful renewal is in a grey area.

It's more subjective than objective, yes.

Would the admissibility of PQ (in cases that views may be changed) be left to the judgment of the chair?

Yes. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 247, l. 19-21.

This ruling, however, is subject to appeal. See Section 24.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I found the citation.

See the example of RONR page 200.

The mover and seconder together do the "demanding."

The following example shows the forms used in han-

dling alternative motions for the Previous Question that

specify different numbers of pending questions in a series,

as described under Standard Characteristic 6.

Assume that a resolution, an amendment to the resolu-

tion, and a motion to Commit are pending (in which case the

motion to Commit is the immediately pending question).

member x (obtaining the floor): I move the previous question.

(Second. In this case only the motion to Commit is affected.)

chair: The previous question is demanded. As many as are in

favor of ordering ...

member y (quickly rising and interrupting the chair): Mr. President.

chair: For what purpose does the member rise?

member y: I move the previous question on all pending questions.

(Second.)

[Guest Phil M]

Thank you everyone. You answered my question quite definitively.

And I like that standing rule that moving the previous question cannot be prefaced by debate. It may explain why my organization had, for years, a belief that once having debated, the speaker could not make a motion. For this one motion, that makes some sense to me.

Thanks again.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you everyone. You answered my question quite definitively.

And I like that standing rule that moving the previous question cannot be prefaced by debate. It may explain why my organization had, for years, a belief that once having debated, the speaker could not make a motion.

The fact is when a member obtains the floor for any legitimate purpose, he has it for all legitimate purposes. This includes the making of the motions, even the Previous Question.

For this one motion, that makes some sense to me.

You have to remember that a member doesn't order the Previous Question. It has to be ordered by two thirds of the assembly, so, if it's adopted, I don't see how the member moving it can be blamed for anything other than being in tune with the will of the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

I was once a member of a delegate assembly whose one standing rule was:

The previous question may be moved immediately upon gaining recognition, and at no other time.

This is actually a special rule of order and I don't quite see the point in such a rule as it could be suspended by the same vote needed to order the Previous Question. As others have suggested, if members wish for further debate, the solution is to vote against the motion for the Previous Question.

[Tim Wynn]

This is actually a special rule of order and I don't quite see the point in such a rule as it could be suspended by the same vote needed to order the Previous Question. As others have suggested, if members wish for further debate, the solution is to vote against the motion for the Previous Question.

I took this to be a convention, since Mr. Novosielski called it a delegate assembly, in which case it would be called a "standing rule" and would require only a majority vote to be suspended. By any name though, it's equally as illogical in its application, as Mr. Martin has pointed out.