Previous Question and limiting debate

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... this may put me at odds with the answer given to question No. 70 in AIP's 1982 Parliamentary Opinions, but so be it.

I looked it up.

Opinion #70 in "Parliamentary Opinions" (1982).

It gives no page citation for its answer.

(It's answer was, where the Previous Question is adopted, the chair ought to skip over any pending LIMIT DEBATE motion.)

While I understand the psychology of why a chair might want to

• skip over any motion "restricting debate"

• when the adopted motion "PQ" has already "restricted debate",

nonetheless, RONR gives no exception in its Standard Descriptive Characteristics for neither motion, (1.) LIMIT DEBATE; (2.) PREVIOUS QUESTION.

Since RONR gives no exception, I conclude that there is no exception.

Since there is no exception, then the chair must execute the "PQ" with 100% of the pending motions, without skipping (viz., without skipping LIMIT DEBATE).

***

Here is a kicker.

If the UNMODIFED motion "PQ" had been moved (and adopted) as an attempt to STOP AMENDMENTS only, then we would not be having this conversation. - Once you halt amendments, you've done NOTHING regarding ADOPTION or REJECTION of that which no longer can be amended.

So, you'd have to vote on LIMIT DEBATE.

• The "assembly had spoken" only to halt amendments.

• The "assembly had not yet spoken" as to whether the assembly wishes to LIMIT DEBATE.

Review:

Remember, you cannot move to halt debate on a motion which is already not debatable.

So the ONLY strategic purpose of moving "PQ" (unmodified) when LIMIT DEBATE is pending, would be TO HALT AMENDMENTS.

And then JJ's question, as well as Parliamentary Opinion #70, would have had nothing interesting to opine about.

***

Hypothetical:

If RONR had made such an exception, then the exception would make a chair go nuts!

Assume:

• MM is pending

• All subsidiary motions are pending, including LIMIT DEBATE

• The immediate pending question is an AMENDMENT to the (undebatable) motion LIMIT DEBATE.

Then, when you move "PQ" on all pending questions, and adopt it, then RONR might have said, "Decide the amendment of LIMIT DEBATE, but skip over LIMIT DEBATE."

... or ...

... "Skip over the amendment of LIMIT DEBATE, and skip over LIMIT DEBATE, too (because the assembly has closed debate via "PQ"."

And that's crazy. Jumping over two pending motions is too much.

That is a complexity I am glad RONR did not introduce!

***

[J. J.]

Q. Do you mean,

• after ADOPTION of "PQ",

• the cascade down is to start with the topmost pending motion, the AMENDMENT,

• and then, to the MAIN MOTION?

Q. There is no other LIMIT DEBATE motion which is yet-undecided?

Yes, after the adoption of the Previous Questions.

Yes, when the Previous Questions is adopted, assume only the amendment and the main motion are pending.

I also looked up Opinion #70, and see nothing in the current edition that would leave me to believe that the motion to limit debate should be dropped.

[Larry Cisar]

Yes, after the adoption of the Previous Questions.

Yes, when the Previous Questions is adopted, assume only the amendment and the main motion are pending.

I also looked up Opinion #70, and see nothing in the current edition that would leave me to believe that the motion to limit debate should be dropped.

I find Opinion #70 interesting as we now have two of the authorship team disagreeing as one of the writers for Opinion #70 being Mr. Evans. As I read page 190, the motion to Limit Debate is over ridden by PQ. It does not say the adopted motion -- adopted is not there. I take that to mean that it does not matter if LD has been adopted or is just pending.

[Gary Novosielski]

As I read page 190, the motion to Limit Debate is over ridden by PQ. It does not say the adopted motion -- adopted is not there. I take that to mean that it does not matter if LD has been adopted or is just pending.

Where are you seeing that? What line?

It is clearly said to supersede "the effect of an unexhausted order" to limit debate [p. 190, l. 21-22], which only occurs after Limit Debate has been adopted.

If you're relying on "Takes precedence over..." [ibid, l. 18] , don't. That's not what takes precedence means.

(See the definition of TAKING OF PRECEDENCE BY ONE MOTION OVER ANOTHER. [p. 57, l. 27])

Precedence only refers to the fact that one motion can be moved while the other is pending--temporarily replacing it as the immediately pending question.

It does not mean that if adopted, one motion supersedes the the other, nor does it obviate the required vote on any other motions already pending. That would have to be stated specifically in the descriptive characteristics.

[Larry Cisar]

Where are you seeing that? What line?

It is clearly said to supersede "the effect of an unexhausted order" to limit debate [p. 190, l. 21-22], which only occurs after Limit Debate has been adopted.

If you're relying on "Takes precedence over..." [ibid, l. 18] , don't. That's not what takes precedence means.

(See the definition of TAKING OF PRECEDENCE BY ONE MOTION OVER ANOTHER. [p. 57, l. 27])

Precedence only refers to the fact that one motion can be moved while the other is pending--temporarily replacing it as the immediately pending question.

It does not mean that if adopted, one motion supersedes the the other, nor does it obviate the required vote on any other motions already pending. That would have to be stated specifically in the descriptive characteristics.

If the motion to limit debate is adopted, it thereby becomes an unexhausted motion and then yields to the unexhausted motion of previous question. I find Opinion #70 to be the more logical interpretation -- and the one that those who are not involved in working on parliamentary procedure will accept as logical. So on this one, I will disagree with D.H. and not worry about the heresy issue.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the motion to limit debate is adopted, it thereby becomes an unexhausted motion and then yields to the unexhausted motion of previous question. I find Opinion #70 to be the more logical interpretation -- and the one that those who are not involved in working on parliamentary procedure will accept as logical. So on this one, I will disagree with D.H. and not worry about the heresy issue.

You're making the same semantic mistake as before. "Yields to" is just the inverse of "takes precedence of" it refers to allowing another motion of higher precedence to be moved, and nothing more. If Limit Debate is adopted, it does not become an unexhausted motion. Orders, and not the motions creating them, can be exhausted or unexhausted.

But no motion can "yield to" an already-adopted motion, or an unexhausted order. That's meaningless. The only thing a motion can yield to is another motion of higher precedence which is just about to be moved. And the yielding ends as soon as that motion is disposed of.

There's nothing as exciting as heresy issues involved here, it's just (mis)understanding the definitions of words.

[Dan Honemann]

We are concerned that you understand what RONR says; we don't really care at all about what you think it should say.

Tim, I apologize -- that was not intended to be so personal. What I meant to say was that, in this forum, we are concerned that we understand what RONR says, and not at all about what we think it should say.

[Trina]

Me too. In fact I think it's cool, bordering on nifty.

Since the vote on Limit to 9:30 occurs after the vote on PQ, it suggests that, with full knowledge of the PQ having been ordered, the assembly, by voting Yes on the motion to Limit, takes advantage of the parliamentary situation and, with open eyes, agrees to debate until 9:30.

Paradoxically, if they vote down the motion to Limit, PQ immediately cuts off debate on the amendment(s) and the main motion in turn.

Good luck to the chair in explaining the effect of a Yes or No vote. "Those in favor of limiting debate, thereby allowing debate to continue, will vote Aye; those opposed to limiting debate, thereby cutting off debate entirely, will vote No.

You gotta love it.

With all due respect, I think you missed the point. It's not about what the rules say; it's about what they should say.

....

I find Opinion #70 to be the more logical interpretation -- and the one that those who are not involved in working on parliamentary procedure will accept as logical. So on this one, I will disagree with D.H. and not worry about the heresy issue.

I guess it is 'nifty' in the sense of leading to the amusing/confusing result outlined by Mr. Novosielski, and that does seem to be where one ends up in following the algorithm laid out by RONR. However, I share the doubts expressed by Mr. Wynn and Mr. Cisar, as to how this sequence is going to make any sense to the members of most real-world assemblies. I always like to guess at the underlying reasons for processes in RONR (and since it is such a thoroughly exercised and debugged work, there usually does seem to be a good reason for those processes) -- perhaps there is something in Mr. Goldsworthy's argument in post #26, that introducing an exception would lead to a worse mess than we have under the current rules... But I don't really comprehend what's so 'crazy' about jumping over two pending motions (a motion to limit debate, and a hypothetical amendment to that motion). I know, wanting to understand the reasons why RONR says what it says comes perilously close to having an opinion about what it should say.

With all due respect, I think you have missed the point.

We are concerned that you understand what RONR says; we don't really care at all about what you think it should say.

Tim, I apologize -- that was not intended to be so personal. What I meant to say was that, in this forum, we are concerned that we understand what RONR says, and not at all about what we think it should say.

I for one am glad to see this apology to Mr. Wynn.

[J. J.]

If the motion to limit debate is adopted, it thereby becomes an unexhausted motion and then yields to the unexhausted motion of previous question. I find Opinion #70 to be the more logical interpretation -- and the one that those who are not involved in working on parliamentary procedure will accept as logical. So on this one, I will disagree with D.H. and not worry about the heresy issue.

I have to look at these factors (and I didn't recall #70 when I posted).

1. Effectively PQ suspends the rules for debate, but that is only one function of PQ. If, in the middle of PQ ordered on a number of questions, a member would move to Suspend the Rules and end the order, it sure looks like it would be in order. The vote would be same for all these, Suspend, PQ and Limits of Debate, a 2/3 vote; Limits of Debate also effectively suspends the rules. The principle that a 2/3 vote can stop that function of PQ exists.

2. There are different functions for Limits of Debate and PQ; PQ also prevents addition lower ranking motions from being made. The assembly may wish (by a 2/3 vote) to continue debate, but not permit the motion to be subject to additional debate. There is a legitimate procedural reason for not dropping it. It is logical to vote on Limits of Debate, and follow it if it is properly adopted.

3. In the current edition, I find no reference to dropping, so we can't cite a page that says we should. (I frankly thought I was missing something.)

4. Specific to Opinion #70, it was written prior to 1982. Had the authorship team wished to incorporate Mr. Evans', et al., answer into the text (as they have with others), they could have.

So, I think that it is now three times that I disagree with Mr. Evans. I've got to with Mr. Mr. Honemann on this one.

[Tim Wynn]

Tim, I apologize -- that was not intended to be so personal. What I meant to say was that, in this forum, we are concerned that we understand what RONR says, and not at all about what we think it should say.

Dan, thanks for the apology. I accept. Also, I apologize for the reply that I had previously drafted, which now need not see the light of day.

[Dan Honemann]

It should be kept in mind that Bill Evans was just one of three people on the AIP committee rendering these opinions. I know that on some occasions when he disagreed with the others he gave a separate response, but I am reasonably confident that he did not do so on every such occasion.

In any event, nothing said in Section 16 (and particularly on pages 190-91) suggests to me that, if a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is the immediately pending question when a motion ordering the Previous Question on all pending questions is adopted, the motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate is simply to be skipped over and ignored. To my way of thinking, this is essentially the same thing as saying that it would be proper to move the previous question on all pending questions except the immediately pending motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, which I think is clearly not the case.

As for practicalities, I suspect that a member in favor of the pending motion to limit debate will be shocked to discover that the opportunity to vote in favor of its adoption has simply gone down the drain, even although he understood that the motion which was adopted was one to order the previous question on all pending questions.

[Gary Novosielski]

As for practicalities, I suspect that a member in favor of the pending motion to limit debate will be shocked to discover that the opportunity to vote in favor of its adoption has simply gone down the drain, even although he understood that the motion which was adopted was one to order the previous question on all pending questions.

I suspect that the member may be equally surprised, perhaps pleasantly, to discover that after the Previous Question is ordered the parliamentary procedure genii has transformed his motion to Limit Debate to 9:30 into a motion to Extend Debate till 9:30.

But he'll get over it. And marvel at the wisdom of making Limit or Extend a single motion.

[Matt Schafer]

I read this topic with great interest throughout the weekend. Now that the discussion has died down, I'd like to make sure I understand the situation and the reasoning behind it.

So here's a summary of the situation. Motions that are pending, in order of precedence:

1. Motion for the Previous Question on all pending questions
   
2. Motion to close debate and put the question on the resolution at 9:30
   
3. Motion to amend resolution
   
4. Motion to adopt resolution
   

The motion on the Previous Question is then adopted. This cuts off all debate and immediately starts the putting of the votes on all pending questions. First up is the motion to close debate at 9:30. The vote is taken, and if it is not adopted, the votes on the motion to amend and the motion to adopt are then taken, as with any other circumstance under an order for the Previous Question.

If the motion to close debate at 9:30 is adopted, however, it has the odd quirk that it would actually allow debate until 9:30. Then we have an unexhausted order for the Previous Question (none of the conditions in RONR (10th ed.), p. 196, l. 4-18 having been satisfied) and an unexhausted order for Limiting Debate (none of the conditions in p. 187, l. 10-17 having been satisfied). At this point, debate is allowed until the specified time. Would the making of any subsidiary motion -- such as to Postpone Definitely or Commit -- be in order? It looks like all subsidiary motions except Amend are in order, respecting the order of precedence. However, no amendments of any new subsidiary motion and no secondary amendments of the pending primary amendment would be in order, and if a vote is taken on the primary amendment before 9:30 (because no one had anything further to discuss in debate), no subsequent primary amendments would be in order. (P. 190, l. 1-2 and 198 l. 31 to p. 199, l. 2) Is my reasoning correct?

I think I understand that the reason this happens in this way is that after ordering the Previous Question, if the assembly then adopts the motion to close debate at 9:30 and put the vote on the resolution, it voted with the required 2/3, which is the same vote necessary to Amend Something Previously Adopted. One of the aspects of the Previous Question is to close debate immediately (p. 189, l. 30), so this specific aspect is being amended by allowing debate until 9:30.

There's one thing I don't quite understand yet. Does p. 190, l. 20-23 have any consequence on this situation? The adoption of the Previous Question supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order for Limiting Debate. I don't see anything in this clause on p. 190 that speaks to the ordering of adoption of the motions for the PQ and LD. So if that is true, then the adoption of the motion to close debate at 9:30 would have no practical effect, since the order for the Previous Question closes debate immediately. But the consensus here is that it would allow debate until 9:30. What am I missing?

Thanks for your help in enlightenment.

[Rob Elsman]

I read this topic with great interest throughout the weekend. Now that the discussion has died down, I'd like to make sure I understand the situation and the reasoning behind it.

So here's a summary of the situation. Motions that are pending, in order of precedence:

1. Motion for the Previous Question on all pending questions
2. Motion to close debate and put the question on the resolution at 9:30
3. Motion to amend resolution
4. Motion to adopt resolution

The motion on the Previous Question is then adopted. This cuts off all debate and immediately starts the putting of the votes on all pending questions. First up is the motion to close debate at 9:30. The vote is taken, and if it is not adopted, the votes on the motion to amend and the motion to adopt are then taken, as with any other circumstance under an order for the Previous Question.

If the motion to close debate at 9:30 is adopted, however, it has the odd quirk that it would actually allow debate until 9:30. Then we have an unexhausted order for the Previous Question (none of the conditions in RONR (10th ed.), p. 196, l. 4-18 having been satisfied) and an unexhausted order for Limiting Debate (none of the conditions in p. 187, l. 10-17 having been satisfied). At this point, debate is allowed until the specified time. Would the making of any subsidiary motion -- such as to Postpone Definitely or Commit -- be in order? It looks like all subsidiary motions except Amend are in order, respecting the order of precedence. However, no amendments of any new subsidiary motion and no secondary amendments of the pending primary amendment would be in order, and if a vote is taken on the primary amendment before 9:30 (because no one had anything further to discuss in debate), no subsequent primary amendments would be in order. (P. 190, l. 1-2 and 198 l. 31 to p. 199, l. 2) Is my reasoning correct?

I think I understand that the reason this happens in this way is that after ordering the Previous Question, if the assembly then adopts the motion to close debate at 9:30 and put the vote on the resolution, it voted with the required 2/3, which is the same vote necessary to Amend Something Previously Adopted. One of the aspects of the Previous Question is to close debate immediately (p. 189, l. 30), so this specific aspect is being amended by allowing debate until 9:30.

There's one thing I don't quite understand yet. Does p. 190, l. 20-23 have any consequence on this situation? The adoption of the Previous Question supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order for Limiting Debate. I don't see anything in this clause on p. 190 that speaks to the ordering of adoption of the motions for the PQ and LD. So if that is true, then the adoption of the motion to close debate at 9:30 would have no practical effect, since the order for the Previous Question closes debate immediately. But the consensus here is that it would allow debate until 9:30. What am I missing?

Thanks for your help in enlightenment.

Questions like "Is my reasoning correct?" and "What am I missing?" are almost impossible to answer. I would suggest you recast your questions in terms of what does RONR say.

[hmtcastle]

What am I missing?

A life?

[Gary Novosielski]

There's one thing I don't quite understand yet. Does p. 190, l. 20-23 have any consequence on this situation? The adoption of the Previous Question supersedes the effect of an unexhausted order for Limiting Debate. I don't see anything in this clause on p. 190 that speaks to the ordering of adoption of the motions for the PQ and LD. So if that is true, then the adoption of the motion to close debate at 9:30 would have no practical effect, since the order for the Previous Question closes debate immediately. But the consensus here is that it would allow debate until 9:30. What am I missing?

Thanks for your help in enlightenment.

No, lines 20-23 do not apply because at the time the PQ is adopted there is no order limiting debate--the Limit or Extend motion hasn't been voted on yet. The order limiting or extending doesn't occur unless and until that motion is adopted.

So at that point the only unexhausted order is the PQ. The effect of that order is to render the Limit motion unamendable and effectively turning it into a motion to Extend, since ending at 9:30 would be longer than the immediate limit ordered by the PQ.

If the motion to Limit or Extend passes, that creates an unexhausted order extending debate until 9:30 and amends the order for the previously adopted PQ so debate on the main motion and amendments may continue.

I believe that extending the debatability of the main motion and its pending amendment also keeps them open to subsidiary motions, which would have been prevented by the order for the Previous Question, at leeast until 9:30 arrives. At that time the question is put on the main motion in whatever state it's in at that point, unless already disposed of by a subsidiary motion such as Commit (presuming new ones really are allowed).

[Dan Honemann]

No, lines 20-23 do not apply because at the time the PQ is adopted there is no order limiting debate--the Limit or Extend motion hasn't been voted on yet. The order limiting or extending doesn't occur unless and until that motion is adopted.

So at that point the only unexhausted order is the PQ. The effect of that order is to render the Limit motion unamendable and effectively turning it into a motion to Extend, since ending at 9:30 would be longer than the immediate limit ordered by the PQ.

If the motion to Limit or Extend passes, that creates an unexhausted order extending debate until 9:30 and amends the order for the previously adopted PQ so debate on the main motion and amendments may continue.

I believe that extending the debatability of the main motion and its pending amendment also keeps them open to subsidiary motions, which would have been prevented by the order for the Previous Question, at leeast until 9:30 arrives. At that time the question is put on the main motion in whatever state it's in at that point, unless already disposed of by a subsidiary motion such as Commit (presuming new ones really are allowed).

In this extremely unusual circumstance (to say the least), the order limiting debate, having been adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote (which is enough to suspend the rules anyway) effectively supersedes the previously adopted order for the previous question, which is now a dead duck.

(By the way, motions to Commit or to Postpone will still not be in order, see p. 186, l. 16-23).

[Trina]

....

1. Effectively PQ suspends the rules for debate, but that is only one function of PQ. If, in the middle of PQ ordered on a number of questions, a member would move to Suspend the Rules and end the order, it sure looks like it would be in order. The vote would be same for all these, Suspend, PQ and Limits of Debate, a 2/3 vote; Limits of Debate also effectively suspends the rules. The principle that a 2/3 vote can stop that function of PQ exists.

2. There are different functions for Limits of Debate and PQ; PQ also prevents addition lower ranking motions from being made. The assembly may wish (by a 2/3 vote) to continue debate, but not permit the motion to be subject to additional debate. There is a legitimate procedural reason for not dropping it. It is logical to vote on Limits of Debate, and follow it if it is properly adopted.

....

No, lines 20-23 do not apply because at the time the PQ is adopted there is no order limiting debate--the Limit or Extend motion hasn't been voted on yet. The order limiting or extending doesn't occur unless and until that motion is adopted.

So at that point the only unexhausted order is the PQ. The effect of that order is to render the Limit motion unamendable and effectively turning it into a motion to Extend, since ending at 9:30 would be longer than the immediate limit ordered by the PQ.

If the motion to Limit or Extend passes, that creates an unexhausted order extending debate until 9:30 and amends the order for the previously adopted PQ so debate on the main motion and amendments may continue.

....

In this extremely unusual circumstance (to say the least), the order limiting debate, having been adopted by the requisite two-thirds vote (which is enough to suspend the rules anyway) effectively supersedes the previously adopted order for the previous question, which is now a dead duck.

....

So, if I understand the technical meaning of 'dead duck' properly, Mr. Novosielski is wrong in supposing that PQ continues in force in some amended form (once the motion to limit or extend passes)? This seems to be what J.J. was getting at also when he mentioned suspending the rules to 'end the order.'

At the risk of calling down a 'get a life' comment from Mr. Mountcastle, I'll admit that I find this discussion interesting, although probably without much real-life applicability .

[Dan Honemann]

So, if I understand the technical meaning of 'dead duck' properly, Mr. Novosielski is wrong in supposing that PQ continues in force in some amended form (once the motion to limit or extend passes)? This seems to be what J.J. was getting at also when he mentioned suspending the rules to 'end the order.'

At the risk of calling down a 'get a life' comment from Mr. Mountcastle, I'll admit that I find this discussion interesting, although probably without much real-life applicability .

Yes, I think you correctly understand the technical meaning of "dead duck".

[Gary Novosielski]

So, if I understand the technical meaning of 'dead duck' properly, Mr. Novosielski is wrong in supposing that PQ continues in force in some amended form (once the motion to limit or extend passes)? This seems to be what J.J. was getting at also when he mentioned suspending the rules to 'end the order.'

At the risk of calling down a 'get a life' comment from Mr. Mountcastle, I'll admit that I find this discussion interesting, although probably without much real-life applicability .

Well, whether the PQ order is technically in force or not, it has no discernible effect once debate is extended. When debate ends at 9:30, the Limit order requires that the question be put at that time. The PQ order, if it were then to emerge from behind the exhausted Limit order, would also require that the question be put at that time. It is at best redundant.

Since it has no remaining function once the Limit motion is passed, you can call it rescinded, you can call it suspended, you can call it exhausted, or you can call it a dead duck, and the result would be the same in any case. I would not object to any of those interpretations.

[Dan Honemann]

Well, whether the PQ order is technically in force or not, it has no discernible effect once debate is extended. When debate ends at 9:30, the Limit order requires that the question be put at that time. The PQ order, if it were then to emerge from behind the exhausted Limit order, would also require that the question be put at that time. It is at best redundant.

Since it has no remaining function once the Limit motion is passed, you can call it rescinded, you can call it suspended, you can call it exhausted, or you can call it a dead duck, and the result would be the same in any case. I would not object to any of those interpretations.

But until the hour of 9:30 arrives, motions to postpone indefinitely and amend will be in order, and this would not be the case if the order for the previous question was not a dead duck.

[hmtcastle]

At the risk of calling down a 'get a life' comment from Mr. Mountcastle . . .

He likes to think that risk has been dramatically reduced.

[Rob Elsman]

But until the hour of 9:30 arrives, motions to postpone indefinitely and amend will be in order, and this would not be the case if the order for the previous question was not a dead duck.

Thank you for this reply, Dan. It confirms what I had thought.

[Matt Schafer]

Thanks to everyone for your replies and continuing discussion. That wraps it up for me.