Secondary Amendment

[Guest Ameet K. Hingorani]

In one meeting, the following motion was moved, followed by 2 amendments. As per Roberts Rules, the secondary amendment has to be debated and voted upon first, followed by the primary amendment and lastly the main motion. My doubt is that if the secondary amendment is voted upon and carried, then it indicates the concurrence of the assembly for the entire program. Where is the need then to go to the primary amendment and debate on art critic or eminent singer ?

Main : A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary : A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge.

Secondary : A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge.

[Robert B Fish]

Main : A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary : A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge.

Secondary : A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge.

Not quite.

The primary and secondary amendments must be in a manner that modifies that moved previously, usually by removing and/or adding words.

E.g.

Main: A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary: Strike "and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme" and add "in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge."

Secondary: strike "an eminent singer" and add "an art critic"

As you can see, favoring "an art critic" does not mean you favor the programme.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

Where is the need then to go to the primary amendment and debate on art critic or eminent singer ?

Adopting the secondary amendment alters the primary amendment but does not adopt the primary amendment. Just as adopting the primary amendment alters the main motion but does not adopt the main motion.

[Dan Honemann]

In one meeting, the following motion was moved, followed by 2 amendments. As per Roberts Rules, the secondary amendment has to be debated and voted upon first, followed by the primary amendment and lastly the main motion. My doubt is that if the secondary amendment is voted upon and carried, then it indicates the concurrence of the assembly for the entire program.

As Mr. Fish has indicated, these proposed amendments are best offered in the form of amendments to strike out and insert (discussed on pp. 142-46) and not in the form of motions to substitute (discussed on pp. 146-54), but in either case adoption of the secondary amendment simply means that the assembly has decided that, if a cultural night is to be organized in which a singing competition will be held for the public, that an art critic should be called as a judge. The assembly has not yet decided anything else.

Where is the need then to go to the primary amendment and debate on art critic or eminent singer ?

There is no need to do so, this question has been decided. The question now to be decided (the primary amendment as now amended) is the question as to whether, if a cultural night is to be organized, should a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge instead of calling Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

[Gary Novosielski]

In one meeting, the following motion was moved, followed by 2 amendments. As per Roberts Rules, the secondary amendment has to be debated and voted upon first, followed by the primary amendment and lastly the main motion. My doubt is that if the secondary amendment is voted upon and carried, then it indicates the concurrence of the assembly for the entire program. Where is the need then to go to the primary amendment and debate on art critic or eminent singer ?

Main: A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary: and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge

Secondary: eminent singer art critic

Agreeing to the secondary amendment does not indicate concurrence of the assembly for the entire program.

It indicates only a preference that the judge of the competition (if any) should be an art critic rather than a singer, in the (perhaps unlikely) event that there is a competition rather than performance by Mr. SPB, further presuming that the assembly decides to have a cultural event at all, which may well depend on how the amendments fare.

A member might vote for the secondary amendment for the sheer entertainment value of watching an art critic judge a singing competition, while fully intending to vote against the primary amendment because she was actually a great fan of Mr. SPB, but then vote against the main motion because of the expense involved.

She does not want a cultural night, but if one is held she wants to hear Mr. SPB, but if a competition is held instead, she wants it judged by an art critic.

[ameething]

It indicates only a preference that the judge of the competition (if any) should be an art critic rather than a singer, in the (perhaps unlikely) event that there is a competition rather than performance by Mr. SPB, further presuming that the assembly decides to have a cultural event at all, which may well depend on how the amendments fare.

A member might vote for the secondary amendment for the sheer entertainment value of watching an art critic judge a singing competition, while fully intending to vote against the primary amendment because she was actually a great fan of Mr. SPB, but then vote against the main motion because of the expense involved.

She does not want a cultural night, but if one is held she wants to hear Mr. SPB, but if a competition is held instead, she wants it judged by an art critic.

Very explicit. Thank you very much.

[ameething]

My thanks to Robert B Fish, H. Wm. Mountcastle, Dan Honemann, Gary Novosielski for replying and clarifying my doubts.

[Dan Honemann]

My thanks to Robert B Fish, H. Wm. Mountcastle, Dan Honemann, Gary Novosielski for replying and clarifying my doubts.

You're quite welcome, but I wonder if you could tell us if the proposed primary amendments were offered in the form of motions to strike out and insert (as would have been best and appears to have been the case), or if they were offered in the form of motions to substitute. If the latter, it seems to me that multiple questions could arise that our resident crocodiles would be ripping to shreds by now.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Main : A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary : A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge.

Secondary : A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge.

You're quite welcome, but I wonder if you could tell us if the proposed primary amendments were offered in the form of motions to strike out and insert (as would have been best and appears to have been the case), or if they were offered in the form of motions to substitute. If the latter, it seems to me that multiple questions could arise that our resident crocodiles would be ripping to shreds by now.

I think the biggest problem with these motions is that the last two contain a subjunctive "be" clause within a subjunctive "be" clause ("A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held ..."), which just seems weird to me.

But I suppose there might also be some problem if, after the (secondary) substitute for the (primary) substitute is rejected but while the (primary) substitute is still pending, someone moves to strike out from the main motion "and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme" and insert "in which a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge".

Or did you have in mind something even more devious?

[ameething]

You're quite welcome, but I wonder if you could tell us if the proposed primary amendments were offered in the form of motions to strike out and insert (as would have been best and appears to have been the case), or if they were offered in the form of motions to substitute. If the latter, it seems to me that multiple questions could arise that our resident crocodiles would be ripping to shreds by now.

They were basically "strike out" and "insert".

But I would be interested in having the resident crocodiles having a go at it, assuming that it was offered in the form of "substitute". What would the multiple questions be ? It will help me handle similar situations in the assembly better in future.

I think the biggest problem with these motions is that the last two contain a subjunctive "be" clause within a subjunctive "be" clause ("A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held ..."), which just seems weird to me.

But I suppose there might also be some problem if, after the (secondary) substitute for the (primary) substitute is rejected but while the (primary) substitute is still pending, someone moves to strike out from the main motion "and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme" and insert "in which a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge".

Or did you have in mind something even more devious?

Please clarify what you have written, assuming it was not a mistake. With secondary amendment rejected, the primary amendment is pending. Then how can you amend the MAIN motion ?

Since you have invited me to offer a devious situation, here is one :

Secondary - approved (favoring art critic)

Primary - Rejected

New Primary (strike out and insert) : have a dancing competition with an art critic as the judge.

Now, since the house has already voted that it prefers an art critic as the judge instead of any expert, is it in order for someone to move a secondary by striking out "art critic" and insert "dance expert" ?

[Dan Honemann]

Please clarify what you have written, assuming it was not a mistake. With secondary amendment rejected, the primary amendment is pending. Then how can you amend the MAIN motion ?

When a primary amendment is offered in the form of a substitute for a pending main motion (as Mr. Gerber has posited), the pending main motion itself is open to amendment and may be amended (by secondary amendment) before voting on the pending primary amendment (RONR, 10th ed., p. 147, ll. 5-18).

Since you have invited me to offer a devious situation, here is one :

Secondary - approved (favoring art critic)

Primary - Rejected

New Primary (strike out and insert) : have a dancing competition with an art critic as the judge.

Now, since the house has already voted that it prefers an art critic as the judge instead of any expert, is it in order for someone to move a secondary by striking out "art critic" and insert "dance expert" ?

Yes. The assembly has made no decision as to who should be the judge of a dancing competition.

[Dan Honemann]

But I suppose there might also be some problem if, after the (secondary) substitute for the (primary) substitute is rejected but while the (primary) substitute is still pending, someone moves to strike out from the main motion "and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme" and insert "in which a singing competition be held for the public and an art critic be called as a judge".

Or did you have in mind something even more devious?

Yes, I think this scenario of yours will feed the crocodiles, as will a "what if", in the original scenario, the secondary amendment is offered as a substitute for the pending main motion rather than as a substitute for the pending substitute.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, I think this scenario of yours will feed the crocodiles, as will a "what if", in the original scenario, the secondary amendment is offered as a substitute for the pending main motion rather than as a substitute for the pending substitute.

A little clarification please, as I may be reading this wrong. P. 146 ll. 24-27 reads to me that a substitute offered against an immediately pending main motion is a primary amendment. Thus, a second substitute cannot be moved against the main motion itself while a primary amendment (the first substitute) is pending. Am I misreading this then?

[Dan Honemann]

A little clarification please, as I may be reading this wrong. P. 146 ll. 24-27 reads to me that a substitute offered against an immediately pending main motion is a primary amendment. Thus, a second substitute cannot be moved against the main motion itself while a primary amendment (the first substitute) is pending. Am I misreading this then?

First of all, you need to understand that, while a motion (primary amendment) to amend a main motion or resolution by substituting another in its place is pending, the main motion or resolution itself is open to improvement by secondary amendment in any of the three forms relating to words before the vote is taken on the primary amendment. (RONR, 10th ed., p. 141, ll. 1-22); pp. 146-147).

Any problem with this?

[David A Foulkes]

First of all, you need to understand that, while a motion (primary amendment) to amend a main motion or resolution by substituting another in its place is pending, the main motion or resolution itself is open to improvement by secondary amendment in any of the three forms relating to words before the vote is taken on the primary amendment. (RONR, 10th ed., p. 141, ll. 1-22); pp. 146-147).

Any problem with this?

Nope. Is there a second of all?

[Gary Novosielski]

First of all, you need to understand that, while a motion (primary amendment) to amend a main motion or resolution by substituting another in its place is pending, the main motion or resolution itself is open to improvement by secondary amendment in any of the three forms relating to words before the vote is taken on the primary amendment. (RONR, 10th ed., p. 141, ll. 1-22); pp. 146-147).

Any problem with this?

No, but it always struck me as rather odd, and i suppose I resolved not to think about it.

[Dan Honemann]

Nope. Is there a second of all?

So suppose the main motion consists of clauses A and B. A motion is made to substitute X. While the motion to substitute X is pending, a motion to amend the main motion can be made and adopted to strike clause A and insert clause Y, and then a motion to amend the main motion can be made and adopted to strike clause B and insert clause Z. The main motion now consists of clause Y and clause Z. Nothing remains of the original motion. No vote has as yet been taken on the motion to substitute X for the pending main motion.

Are you still sure that it would not be in order to simply move to substitute clauses Y and Z for the original motion? If so, do you base that solely on what is said on page 146, lines 24-27?

[Dan Honemann]

No, but it always struck me as rather odd, and i suppose I resolved to not to think about it.

I don't blame you.

Everyone seems to think that the rules on Reconsider are tough to master, but I think the rules on Amend are even tougher.

[David A Foulkes]

Are you still sure that it would not be in order to simply move to substitute clauses Y and Z for the original motion?

Well, it would certainly seem foolhardy of me at this point to answer yes. And yet... how does this resolve then with the language on page 146, lines 24-27? By that section, the motion to substitute against a main motion is a primary amendment, as thus would be both the motion to substitute X and the motion to substitute Y and Z. But only one can be a primary amendment, and a motion to substitute can only be made when no other amendment is pending. Once "substitute X" is stated by the chair, no other motion to substitute against the main motion can be allowed, only motions of the three "basic" forms of Amend.

If this is not the case, clearly I'm missing something, and I can only hope that it is a (very) fine point, and not one of the brick-to-the-forward style.

If I were in the chair, I think I'd rule the motion to substitute "Y/Z" for "A/B" out of order. Must I get my crash helmet on and pull it over my forehead? (or is it forhead?)

[Dan Honemann]

If I were in the chair, I think I'd rule the motion to substitute "Y/Z" for "A/B" out of order. Must I get my crash helmet on and pull it over my forehead? (or is it forhead?)

No, I'm inclined to agree with you (not, however, because of what's said on p. 146, ll. 24-27). but I know that there is at least one excellent parliamentarian who thinks otherwise.

[Matt Schafer]

No, I'm inclined to agree with you (not, however, because of what's said on p. 146, ll. 24-27). but I know that there is at least one excellent parliamentarian who thinks otherwise.

Could the statement on p. 147, l. 10-16 -- particularly the parenthetical phrase -- be used to justify the prohibition of using a substitute for secondary amendment? Or is that reading a bit too much into it?

[David A Foulkes]

Must I get my crash helmet on?

No

Whew!

I'm inclined to agree with you (not, however, because of what's said on p. 146, ll. 24-27).

Don't suppose I could entice you into revealing what in RONR does persuade you, if not this section?

[David A Foulkes]

Could the statement on p. 147, l. 10-16 -- particularly the parenthetical phrase -- be used to justify the prohibition of using a substitute for secondary amendment? Or is that reading a bit too much into it?

I think that statement, with emphasis on the parenthetical phrase, could be seen as persuasive in the context of p. 570(4), although that section is specific to the bylaws of course. The statement on p. 146 still reads to me as definitive, in that once any primary amendment, whether a substitute or even a strike-and-insert, is pending, an amendment to substitute offered against the main motion itself is not in order. I seem to be riding that zebra solo, though.

[Dan Honemann]

Don't suppose I could entice you into revealing what in RONR does persuade you, if not this section?

First of all, perhaps I should have said “not, however, just because of what's said on page 146, lines 24-27”. What is said there has some bearing on the question, as does the statement on page 147, lines 10-16, as suggested by Matt Schafer, together with what is said on pages 135, lines 10-20. However, I think my old views on this question may have been all wrong.

If anyone really wants to struggle with this, look closely at the example given on pages 151-54. Look carefully at the motion on page 152, lines 6-9. This motion is offered in the form of a motion to strike out and insert words, but I submit that it amounts to a motion to substitute in that it proposes to strike out virtually the entire main motion and substitute something entirely different in its place. It proposes that the Federation conduct a campaign to raise funds rather than construct and equip a new service wing. After its adoption, virtually nothing remains of the original main motion, and the chair announces that it has become the pending resolution (p. 152, ll. 23-26). He then asks if there are any further amendments to this pending resolution (p. 152, ll.33-34). This seems rather clearly to indicate that even although the assembly has agreed to strike out the original motion and substitute a new one in its place, the new one is as fully open to amendment as if it had, in fact, been the original motion.

So I think that perhaps my old views on this subject were all wet.

[David A Foulkes]

First of all, perhaps I should have said “not, however, just because of what's said on page 146, lines 24-27”. What is said there has some bearing on the question, as does the statement on page 147, lines 10-16, as suggested by Matt Schafer, together with what is said on pages 135, lines 10-20. However, I think my old views on this question may have been all wrong.

If anyone really wants to struggle with this, look closely at the example given on pages 151-54. Look carefully at the motion on page 152, lines 6-9. This motion is offered in the form of a motion to strike out and insert words, but I submit that it amounts to a motion to substitute in that it proposes to strike out virtually the entire main motion and substitute something entirely different in its place. It proposes that the Federation conduct a campaign to raise funds rather than construct and equip a new service wing. After its adoption, virtually nothing remains of the original main motion, and the chair announces that it has become the pending resolution (p. 152, ll. 23-26). He then asks if there are any further amendments to this pending resolution (p. 152, ll.33-34). This seems rather clearly to indicate that even although the assembly has agreed to strike out the original motion and substitute a new one in its place, the new one is as fully open to amendment as if it had, in fact, been the original motion.

So I think that perhaps my old views on this subject were all wet.

I'm uncomfortable with taking a dialogue example (as transcription of an imaginary meeting) over the several excerpts from the actual book text that seem to contradict it.

I'd like to think Member X knew that he couldn't offer a substitute while Member A's substitute motion (as primary amendment) was pending. Therefore, he approached it as strike-and-insert, retaining just enough of the original motion so as not to fully substitute.

RONR states both options (strike-and-insert and substitute) are available if the unbroken part of the paragraph to be replaced "consists of (or contains) one or more complete sentences..." (P. 147 ll. 29ff, emphasis added) As Member X's amendment did not replace a complete sentence, it must be accepted as a strike-and-insert as used for words. Had he not retained the original first five words, but rather included them in his "insert", that would unarguably be (in my opinion) a substitution.

And I think that's my last. Thanks for an engaging discussion. You are unarguably right about this though.