"previous question" means end debate or just put an end to one member's monologue?

[Guest loose]

If somebody is being "loquacious," and going on way too long, the procedure for shutting them up is - tell me if I'm wrong - to move the previous question? This puts an end to debate altogether? Or does it just put an end to that person's monologue and allow others to speak afterwards? If it puts an end to the monologue, does that person get to speak again? If previous question is not the method for dealing with this situation, what is? Is there a way to shut one person up but allow others to weigh in after that wordy person has been silenced?

[Weldon Merritt]

Is there a way to shut one person up but allow others to weigh in after that wordy person has been silenced?

So long as "that wordy person" has not exceeded his debate limits for the question (two times per question and ten minutes per time, unless there is a special rule of order with diffrent limits or the assembly has adopted a motion to limit debate), then the answer is "no." If he has exceeded the debate limits, then yes, through a Point of Order. Previous Question, if adopted, ends all debate, by all members.

[hmtcastle]

Is there a way to shut one person up but allow others to weigh in after that wordy person has been silenced?

Debate is limited to no more than ten minutes at a time and no more than twice on the same question. It's up to the chair to enforce these limits.

Debate should also alter, as much as is practical, between supporters and opponents of the question.

I assume this "monologue" is taking place after a motion has been placed before the assembly. His remarks must be relevant to the pending question.

For more on the so-called "previous question", see FAQ #11.

[David A Foulkes]

Debate should also alter, as much as is practical, between supporters and opponents of the question.

Did you just fall through the "nate" hole?

[hmtcastle]

Did you just fall through the "nate" hole?

It certainly looks that way.

[Guest loose]

Debate is limited to no more than ten minutes at a time and no more than twice on the same question. It's up to the chair to enforce these limits.

Debate should also alter, as much as is practical, between supporters and opponents of the question.

I assume this "monologue" is taking place after a motion has been placed before the assembly. His remarks must be relevant to the pending question.

For more on the so-called "previous question", see FAQ #11.

Yes, I'm talking about a speaker during debate. I forgot to say, this is a small board using the modified (relaxed) rules. p. 470 says that with informal rules it's not advisable to try and "close or limit" debate. Not sure if this includes not limiting one particular person who is filibustering. I guess if somebody is repeating themselves you could raise a point of order that the content is not germane. It's good to be tolerant of people who just aren't able to spit it out succinctly. I guess I answered my own question.

[Guest loose]

So long as "that wordy person" has not exceeded his debate limits for the question (two times per question and ten minutes per time, unless there is a special rule of order with diffrent limits or the assembly has adopted a motion to limit debate), then the answer is "no." If he has exceeded the debate limits, then yes, through a Point of Order. Previous Question, if adopted, ends all debate, by all members.

Thanks for the confirmation.

[Guest loose]

Did you just fall through the "nate" hole?

What's a "nate" hole? Person answers own question?

[hmtcastle]

What's a "nate" hole?

It's what one falls into when one meant to type "alternate" but instead types "alter".

It's a variant of the infamous "not hole" into which one falls when the word "not" is omitted from a reply. Oddly enough, it happens more often than one might expect.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, I'm talking about a speaker during debate. I forgot to say, this is a small board using the modified (relaxed) rules. p. 470 says that with informal rules it's not advisable to try and "close or limit" debate. Not sure if this includes not limiting one particular person who is filibustering. I guess if somebody is repeating themselves you could raise a point of order that the content is not germane. It's good to be tolerant of people who just aren't able to spit it out succinctly. I guess I answered my own question.

The Previous Question is generally out of order in small boards, and it can never be used to interrupt a member who is speaking in debate. The limit on the length of speeches applies, but the limit on the number of speeches a member can make on a question each day does not apply.

If it comes to the point that debate is no longer serving any legitimate parliamentary purpose, then, of course, the time has arrived to admit the Previous Question.

[dbpc2000]

Can the President or presiding officer make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely ? Or to call the Previous question ?

[hmtcastle]

Can the President or presiding officer make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely ? Or to call the Previous question ?

He can (if a member) but he shouldn't. See FAQ #1.

[David A Foulkes]

Although in the "small board" meetings he is less restricted, and in keeping with rule or custom within the board, is allowed to make motions. Personally, I'd say these are two that I'd be displeased hearing from the presiding officer. But that's just me.

[dbpc2000]

Thanks for your opinions