Guest Robert Ike

Amending a secondary motion

12 posts in this topic

If a member presents a primary motion (with 2nd), and then another member presents a secondary motion (with 2nd), can the secondary motion be amended to the same wording of the primary motion?  We have a member who is really causing a problem with secondary motions to either reduce the scope of a motion or to just cause disention.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Robert Ike said:

I hate to take up your time, but why not?  Is there a specific RROR section I can refer to? The change would be germain to the topic...

Because the same object may be achieved by simply voting the amendment down, which makes this dilatory.

If a member moves to amend the main motion, and that amendment is defeated, the question is on the main motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Mr. Martin's response.

If are you asking "If a member presents a main motion (with 2nd), and then another member presents a substitute (with 2nd), can the substitute be amended (by secondary amendment) to the same wording as the main motion?", the initial response to your question was correct. The same result is obtained by simply rejecting the proposed substitute.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Robert Ike said:

Thank you all for your input, it look like I will just have to make a good argument to deny her substitute motion!

Well, it takes fewer votes to vote down the substitution than to amend it, so if you had the votes to amend the substitution as you suggest, you should have the votes to vote it down already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Robert Ike said:

Thank you all for your input, it look like I will just have to make a good argument to deny her substitute motion!

As chairman, you can't just go rejecting motions that you don't happen to like. "Reducing the scope" of a motion by amendment is a perfectly reasonable objective. If this member is unpopular and repetitive, then strictly observe the limits on length and number of speeches and move the Previous Question to shut down her diversions if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

As chairman, you can't just go rejecting motions that you don't happen to like. "Reducing the scope" of a motion by amendment is a perfectly reasonable objective. If this member is unpopular and repetitive, then strictly observe the limits on length and number of speeches and move the Previous Question to shut down her diversions if necessary.

Well, I don't think that Mr. Ike said that he is the chairman, but if he is, I don't think he ought to be making motions to order the Previous Question.

In any event, I think his question was answered correctly in the preceding posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Guest Robert Ike said:

If a member presents a primary motion (with 2nd), and then another member presents a secondary motion (with 2nd), can the secondary motion be amended to the same wording of the primary motion?  We have a member who is really causing a problem with secondary motions to either reduce the scope of a motion or to just cause disention.

Any help would be greatly appreciated!

 

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Because the same object may be achieved by simply voting the amendment down, which makes this dilatory.

If a member moves to amend the main motion, and that amendment is defeated, the question is on the main motion.

 

11 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I agree with Mr. Martin's response.

If are you asking "If a member presents a main motion (with 2nd), and then another member presents a substitute (with 2nd), can the substitute be amended (by secondary amendment) to the same wording as the main motion?", the initial response to your question was correct. The same result is obtained by simply rejecting the proposed substitute.

 

And so the reference would be to RONR, 11th ed., p. 138, ll. 9-14: "The following types of amendment are out of order: . . . One that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion."

In this case, the "original motion" would be the primary (first-degree) amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...