Previous Question is Previous

Many critics of parliamentary procedure and especially Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised complain about the arcane and sometimes meaningless terms used. One such term is Previous Question. One critic complained that there is nothing previous about the Previous Question.

This critic is wrong. The term 'previous' means coming before in priority, rank, or time. The contemporary usage of 'previous' is almost always taken to mean coming before in time, and this is the way we commonly use the term today. We have forgotten the pejorative definition of coming before in priority or rank. Moving the Previous Question literally means to take the vote on the highest ranking question that is pending.

How could this come about? Well, in olden times, several motions could often be pending at once that did not have a proper rank or order. One can imagine the debate in the House of Commons when a member might state: "can we vote on the question?" The Speaker might respond: "Which one?" To which the member would say: "How about the question most previous?" Now, this dialogue is fictitious, though several hundred years ago when form and procedure were less precise, it is not unrealistic. Thus, moving the Previous Question applied to whichever motion was of highest priority.

After many centuries of trial and effort, the ranking and prioritizing of motions was carefully worked out, so that the highest priority motion is always the immediately pending question. In other words, the last question stated by the chair is always previous in rank because otherwise it would not have been in order at the time it was moved.

Thus, the Previous Question when stated in the unqualified form ("I move the previous question") always applies to the immediately pending question today. When it is stated to apply to several motions (e.g., "I move the previous question on all pending motions"), it means to take the votes in previous order. Again, the previous order is always the reverse order in which the motions were made, since each motion must be in order at the time it was made and therefore of higher rank than the motions pending. Once the vote is taken on the previous question, the next motion in reverse order is the most previous and the vote is taken on it, etc.

The whole point of all this is to say that parliamentary law is based on good sense and good terminology. Just because a phrase does not make sense to us, doesn't mean the phrase is nonsensical. We just need to learn a little more about our language and the full meaning of words, even if it involves a definition or usage that is not common or vernacular.

Now, stick that in your lexicon and use it!

Institutes and Units

Last week, I visited Fort Worth to attend their annual institute. Almost 40 people were present for an introductory level series of workshops. On the same day, the DFW Parliamentarians held an institute in Dallas. There is nothing quite like an institute to help boost unit membership. It is also the best way for members of the Texas and National associations to promote our objective of teaching and disseminating parliamentary law.
I also visited the Alamo Registered Unit in San Antonio - a unit made up of primarily former TSAP presidents. Many of them were president when I was first getting involved in the state association. If you are active in your local unit and want to interact at the next level, consider serving on one of the state committees.
More units are on the calendar for the coming weeks. What a great way to get to know the membership!