Motion on a financial matter falls, can another motion for the same subject with different finances be made?

[bmunroe]

We have an upcoming special meeting to propose an increase in officer compensation.  Should that motion fail, can another motion on the same topic but with different figures be made?

For example,  motion to increase officer compensation by $500 per month falls.  Would a motion to increase officer compensation by $300 per month  be in order?  The original motion would be subject to amendments, etc as any other regular motion.

EDIT:

if this is not in order, I would appreciate any references.

:I suppose the real question is does changing the proposed increase amount change the motion in a manner to satisfy this, from X-38, page 338:

Quote

"A main motion, or a motion for the same amendment to a given motion, cannot be renewed at the same session unless there is a change in wording or circumstances sufficient to present substantially a new question, in which case this becomes technically a different motion"

Thanks in advance for your help, this forum is a very valuable resource and always helpful and fast.

[Richard Brown]

I think such a motion would be in order but others might disagree. It is a close call. The question is whether the new motion presents substantially the same motion as was presented before. I am on my cell phone and do not have RONR are with me at the moment to give you a citation.

It would have been better perhaps to have tried to amend the original motion to either substitute $300 for $500 or to create a blank, but that is not absolutely required.

A ruling of the chair as to whether the new motion is or is not in order can of course be appealed to the assembly.

Just a few days ago there was a very similar issue discussed at great length in this forum. Our regular posters were somewhat divided as to whether the new motion constituted a substantially different motion from the first one.

Note: if a point of order that the new motion is out of water is sustained, a member could move to suspend the rules so as to allow the new motion. Doing so would require a two-thirds vote.

[J. J.]

19 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think such a motion would be in order but others might disagree. It is a close call. The question is whether the new motion presents substantially the same motion as was presented before. I am on my cell phone and do not have RONR are with me at the moment to give you a citation.

It would have been better perhaps to have tried to amend the original motion to either substitute $300 for $500 or to create a blank, but that is not absolutely required.

A ruling of the chair as to whether the new motion is or is not in order can of course be appealed to the assembly.

Just a few days ago there was a very similar issue discussed at great length in this forum. Our regular posters were somewhat divided as to whether the new motion constituted a substantially different motion from the first one.

Note: if a point of order that the new motion is out of water is sustained, a member could move to suspend the rules so as to allow the new motion. Doing so would require a two-thirds vote.

I would rule it out of order, based on it "practically the same question as a motion previously  decided at the same session (p. 343, ll.  23-25)."  However, I would note that the decision is subject to appeal.  

I would also note that if there were people who voted against the $500 motion and were  willing to support the $300 motion, that Reconsider is an option.