Motion, Second, Subsequent Motion

[Guest Holi]

Motion to uphold reassignment of a student to alternative school, seconded, then someone makes a subsequent (?) motion to reinstate the student to the home school.  Is this point of order?

[Guest Holi Update to Question]

If it appears to the chair that an amendment (or any other motion) is uncontroversial, it is proper for the chair to ask if there is “any objection” to adopting the amendment. If no objection is made, the chair may declare the amendment adopted. If even one member objects, however, the amendment is subject to debate and vote like any other, regardless of whether its proposer calls it “friendly” and regardless of whether the maker of the original motion endorses its adoption. [RONR (11th ed.), p. 162.]

Does this mean the point of order is correct, and the vote can continue with the original motion?

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

We may need more information, but it sounds as though the second motion is proposing a different course of action. Such a proposal is called a "substitute motion," and it is a form of amendment. It can be debated and/or amended while the main motion is still pending, and then the body votes on the question, "shall the substitute motion become the main motion?"

Your second post is about "unanimous consent," and does not seem to me to be relevant.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Goodwiller that we might need more information here. However, I want to say that I believe guest Holi does properly understand adopting something by unanimous consent and that if even one person objects it must be opened to debate and voted on

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Strictly speaking, a new main motion is not in order while another is pending. A good chairperson would have interpreted the "subsequent" motion as a motion to amend. It is generally permissible to move to amend a motion to the contrary sense.

[Guest Holi -]

There were objections because the subsequent motion was the complete opposite of the original.  Another Example:  The original motion was to uphold the CEOs reassignment of staff for the next fiscal year while the subsequent motion was to reinstate the staff to current position for the next fiscal year. With the subsequent motion, the chairman called point of order and the body continued with the original motion. The vote was 4-3 and all four had issue with the subsequent motion.  It looks from Guest Who's Coming to dinner, that the chair was correct since a new main motion is not in order while another is pending?????

 

[Dan Honemann]

25 minutes ago, Guest Holi - said:

There were objections because the subsequent motion was the complete opposite of the original.  Another Example:  The original motion was to uphold the CEOs reassignment of staff for the next fiscal year while the subsequent motion was to reinstate the staff to current position for the next fiscal year. With the subsequent motion, the chairman called point of order and the body continued with the original motion. The vote was 4-3 and all four had issue with the subsequent motion.  It looks from Guest Who's Coming to dinner, that the chair was correct since a new main motion is not in order while another is pending?????

 

Yes, it appears that your chairman was correct, since no main motion (except one that is privileged as described on pp. 227-230, which does not appear to be the case in this instance) can be made when any other motion is pending (RONR, 11th ed., p. 59).

[Joshua Katz]

I can't tell you what was proper or not, because I can't decipher what happened.  But here are some general ideas:

1.  Only one main motion may be pending at a time.

2.  A main motion may be amended by making germane changes.  Reversing the meaning is germane, doing something totally different is not.  Changing censure to ratify, for instance, is germane.  Amending by substitution to paint the clubhouse red is not.

3.  A primary amendment may be by substitution - that is, it may substitute a new motion for the old motion.  A secondary amendment may not.

4.  After a motion has been adopted, it may be reconsidered during the same meeting (or on the next day of the session during a multi-day session), or it may be amended or rescinded later, by a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, which requires a 2/3 vote, a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with notice.  

5.  Just because an amendment did not receive unanimous consent, doesn't mean it fails - it means its subject to debate and a vote.

[Alexis Hunt]

11 hours ago, Guest Holi - said:

There were objections because the subsequent motion was the complete opposite of the original.  Another Example:  The original motion was to uphold the CEOs reassignment of staff for the next fiscal year while the subsequent motion was to reinstate the staff to current position for the next fiscal year. With the subsequent motion, the chairman called point of order and the body continued with the original motion. The vote was 4-3 and all four had issue with the subsequent motion.  It looks from Guest Who's Coming to dinner, that the chair was correct since a new main motion is not in order while another is pending?????

 

It is in order to move an amendment that turns a motion into an opposite. The important thing is that they relate to the same subject. For instance, someone couldn't move to amend the motion to assign the student to a new school by substituting a motion to uphold the CEO's reassignment of staff. A motion to reinstate the student is a motion on the same subject, however, so it's in order to move to substitute it.

In this quoted example, the chair was right to rule it out of order but, again, it would have been in order to move to substitute one motion for the other.