multiple alternatives in a motion

[Guest Cathy Walsh]

I am in a situation where a main motion with several different alternatives has passed as a proposal for the assembly to consider. I believe it should have been ruled out of order (because of the multiple alternatives), but, now, I think it is too late. Notice of the assembly meeting and the motion have been mailed, per the bylaws. The assembly meeting to vote on the motion is tomorrow. Can someone move to divide the question so that the three separate alternatives are each considered separate as main motions, debated and voted on? Here are the specifics: The motion that will be put before the assembly aks "that there be an up and down vote on a [new construction] OR a limited renovation project OR the establishment of a general capital campaign [purpose of capital campaign not listed in the motion--presumably the assembly would decide later how the money is to be used--construction or renovation]". Although, it is not a typical division of the question, can someone move to divide the question so that each part is debated and voted on independently? For example: 1) First, there would be a vote on the new construction (which requires 2/3 per the bylaws). 2) If that fails, then there would be a vote on the renovation (which requires a majority). 3) If that fails, there would be a vote on the establishment of a capital campaign fund, the uses of which are to be determined later? Or is there a better way to handle? I think that ruling the motion out of order now would be a disaster but I want to find a way to handle appropriately. My concern is voting on the existing motion has so many alternatives that no one knows what has been decided. Thanks very much!

[jstackpo]

That is all so sufficiently messed up - procedurewise - that the simplest approach would be to defeat the multipart motion, and then move the parts, in a logical order, one at a time. (Some of the later parts may not be needed to be moved, depending on the votes on the first parts.)

But first, speak in debate against the multi-motion and explain what your (reasonable, of course) plan is.

Dividing the question is also proper, but may be confusing to a non-sophisticated (parliamentary unsophisticated, that is) group, and also raise questions as exactly how to do the division.

[Gary Novosielski]

I am in a situation where a main motion with several different alternatives has passed as a proposal for the assembly to consider. I believe it should have been ruled out of order (because of the multiple alternatives), but, now, I think it is too late. Notice of the assembly meeting and the motion have been mailed, per the bylaws. The assembly meeting to vote on the motion is tomorrow.

I don't think it is too late for a point of order.

Presuming the motion is still in this unacceptable "multiple choice" condition, a point of order against its consideration (in that form) could still be well-taken when it comes before the assembly. The fact that it managed to get past the [whatever body created it] doesn't obligate the assembly to tolerate it.

[George Mervosh]

Even though this applies to bylaw amendments I think it's just as easily applied to your situation:

" If notice is given of several amendments which conflict so that all cannot be given effect, the chair should arrange them in a logical order, much as in the case of filling blanks (Section 12), generally taking the least inclusive amendment first and the most inclusive last so that the last one adopted is given effect." RONR, p. 576