Matt Schafer Posted March 9, 2011 at 05:09 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 05:09 PM In RONR, 10th ed., p. 163, l. 11-13, it is stated that a motion to Commit can be amended to one of the other forms (there are five forms total). And l. 15-16 state that a motion to consider informally -- one of the five forms -- is not amendable.If, during debate on a main motion, a motion is made "that the pending question be considered informally," is it then in order for another member to amend by striking "informally" and inserting "in committee of the whole"? It seems that the stated rules on amendment are contradictory.I'm going to guess that the amendment is in order, and that the prohibition in l. 15-16 relates to the fact that there is nothing in a motion to consider informally -- such as the details of which committee to refer to, the composition of the committee, or the committee's instructions -- and therefore there is nothing to amend. But I'm still learning, so my guess is probably wrong.I'm curious to see what others think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 9, 2011 at 05:42 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 05:42 PM I think the answer is, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 9, 2011 at 07:28 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 07:28 PM In RONR, 10th ed., p. 163, l. 11-13, it is stated that a motion to Commit can be amended to one of the other forms (there are five forms total). And l. 15-16 state that a motion to consider informally -- one of the five forms -- is not amendable.If, during debate on a main motion, a motion is made "that the pending question be considered informally," is it then in order for another member to amend by striking "informally" and inserting "in committee of the whole"? It seems that the stated rules on amendment are contradictory.I'm going to guess that the amendment is in order, and that the prohibition in l. 15-16 relates to the fact that there is nothing in a motion to consider informally -- such as the details of which committee to refer to, the composition of the committee, or the committee's instructions -- and therefore there is nothing to amend. But I'm still learning, so my guess is probably wrong.I'm curious to see what others think.No.You cannot use the amendment process to CHANGE ONE MOTION INTO ANOTHER MOTION.Just as you cannot strike out "postpone indefinitely" and insert "postpone to a definite time", you cannot use the amendment process to do what must be done via the MAKING OF THE ALTERNATE MOTION.RONR has a fixed process for the alternate forms you cited.Because there is a fixed process, you cannot circumvent the process by striking out the enacting verb or noun and insert a different verb/noun so as to change the motion into a new independent motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 9, 2011 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 08:47 PM In RONR, 10th ed., p. 163, l. 11-13, it is stated that a motion to Commit can be amended to one of the other forms (there are five forms total). And l. 15-16 state that a motion to consider informally -- one of the five forms -- is not amendable.If, during debate on a main motion, a motion is made "that the pending question be considered informally," is it then in order for another member to amend by striking "informally" and inserting "in committee of the whole"? It seems that the stated rules on amendment are contradictory.I'm going to guess that the amendment is in order, and that the prohibition in l. 15-16 relates to the fact that there is nothing in a motion to consider informally -- such as the details of which committee to refer to, the composition of the committee, or the committee's instructions -- and therefore there is nothing to amend. But I'm still learning, so my guess is probably wrong.I'm curious to see what others think.I think you're right. Just proceed upon the assumption that the sentence on page 163, lines 15-16, is gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 9, 2011 at 09:14 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 09:14 PM I think you're right. Just proceed upon the assumption that the sentence on page 163, lines 15-16, is gone. Because it will be gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 9, 2011 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 09:17 PM Because it will be gone?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 9, 2011 at 09:29 PM Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 at 09:29 PM I think the answer is, no.I agree with George. Whether the rule might change in the next edition is irrelevant to current practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 10, 2011 at 02:30 PM Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 at 02:30 PM I agree with George. Whether the rule might change in the next edition is irrelevant to current practice.Ah, there goes Dan, living in the future, again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.