Weldon Merritt

Distinguished Toastmaster. The title is as prestigious in Toastmasters as PRP is in NAP, or CPP in AIP.

For a quetion that initially didn't get any response for over an hour, this one has genererated a lot of thought-provoking commentary. Without a more explict statement in RONR, I stll am not completely convinced that simply moving to strike the offending amendment is in order at the next session. But I can see a good argument that it should be, and I hope that the 12th edition will make it explicit. I appreciate all of the responses and suggestions. I now have a pretty good idea of the advice to give my friend.

Neither do I, and I have been waiting to see if Mr. Honemann could point us to something that would. While I generally am hesitant to disagree with a member of the authorship team, I believe I must in this instance, unless he can provide a citation to suppoort his assertion. I would be happy to have him do so, as that certainly would simplify matters.

I have been under the impression that once the assembly has voted to amend a pending motion by inserting something, the only way to remove the inserted words while the main motioin is still pending is by reconsidering the vote on the amendment. (I have since confirmed that the coming meeting to which the MM was postponed is a separate session, so reconisder is not in order.) So is my impression wrong? Or does the fact that this is a new session make it now in order to move the amend the MM to strike the inserted langauge? I haven't found anything in RONR that seems to clearly provide the answer.

I am relaying the infomation that was provided to me, so I can't be certain; but it is my understanding that the meeting to which the item was postponed will be a separate session. I will clarify that with the friend before I give him any advice. But I am curious about your second paraghraph. The undesirable portion are the clauses that were inserted by the amendment adopted at the last session. Are you saying that it is order at the next session to move to strike them (without suspending the rules or referring to a committee, or any other work-around)?

For me, too, so far as the mover's first debate opportunity is concerned (and maybe the senond one, too, if the motion has not been amended). Where I have a problem is that the prohibition continues to apply even if the motion has been amended to be entirely different from the maker's intent. I know, of course, that the maker of the original motion can debate against the amendment, or ask permission to withdraw the motion, but those seem to me to be poor substitues for being able to debate against the amended motion. Nevertheless, that's the "black letter law," so my personal view doen't count. I suppose an oganization could adopt a special rule of order allowing the maker to debate against the motion under specified circumstances (or even without restriction if that's what they want to do), but unless they do, the prohibition stands.

Thanks, J.J. I hadn't thought of that option. I think the proponents want to get it taken care of in the coming meeting, and not delay it further. But the committee could be instructed to report at a later time in the same meeting. Or maybe they don't mind if it's delayed further; that's just my assumption. I have no idea how often they normally meet, but if it's monthly, another month may not matter much. At least I now have a couple of options to give them

So far as I can determine, this will be a different session (as J.J. seems to suspect). If it's not, then yes, reconsideration of the amendmennt would work.

That's an intersting idea, but I'm not so sure it would be in order if the substitute was essentially the same resolution sans the amendment. Seems to me that would be equivalent to moving to strike out the amendment, which clearly would not be in order.

Yes, Richard. I recall our discussion. The situation has changed slightly since then, as the first time the friend contacted me, he wasn't aware of the 2017 resolution. But I think the solution we came up with then is still the best one (which seems to have been confirmed by the responses)..

I geuss that might be a reasonable argument. But it would be safer to withdraw it and make a new motion, just in case someone raises a Point of Order and the chair rules it well-taken. Since the vote threshold is the same either way, why not take th safer route?

The amendment already has been adopted, and the amended resolution will come up as postponed item at the next meeting. Since the proponents still want to try to get the pre-amendment version adopted, they can 't simply vote the ameded version down, as that would preclude the resolution being moved again in the same session. Withdrawal would allow it to be moved again.

Thanks, Josh. Glad to know that at least one person doesn't think I amn off base. And yes, it could be voted down, but I think the proponents want to get the original (pre-amendment) resolution adopted. If it is voted down, they can't introoduce it again in the same meeting, at least without suspending the rules.

Come on, folks. Surely someone has some thoughts on this.

You can't find it in RONR because it isn't there. If the bylaws don't say they can't, then they can.

A friend has asked my advice on an issue that I would like to get some other thoughts on. A political party central committee adopted a resolution in 2017, which is (so far as I can tell) still in effect. Then in July of this year, a member moved the adoption of a new resolution on a different issue. During consideration of the new resolution, an amendment was moved and adopted to insert an additional whereas clause and an additional resolved clause essentially reiterating the gist of the 2017 revolution that is still in effect. Subsequently, the pending revolution, as amended, was postponed to a meeting scheduled for later this month. The friend wants to know the best way to get rid of the amendment when the resolution comes up as general order at this month’s meeting. The amendment prebaby should have been ruled out of order in the first place, on two grounds: (1) it was not germane to the resolution being considered and (2) it merely restated (in slightly different language) a previously-adopted resolution that is still in effect, and therefore accomplished nothing. But I think it is too late to raise a Point of Order on either of those grounds. The amendment doesn’t conflict with the previously-adopted resolution, so I don’t think it can be considered a continuing breach. Or does anyone think otherwise? One thought was to have someone who didn’t vote on the prevailing side move to reconsider then vote on the amendment, since there is no time limit in a committee. But then I recalled that (at least as I underrated it) a political party central committee is not really a committee in the RONR sense, but more or a board. So reconsideration probably wouldn’t work. The strategy that I finally decided would work the best is to have the mover of the resolution ask permission to withdraw it. If no one objects, it’s gone. But if anyone does object, it only requires a majority vote to grant permission. If it gets a majority, again, it’s gone. Either way, once it’s gone, the mover (or anyone else) can move adoption of the same resolution without the offending amendment. And if someone moves the same amendment, someone can then raise a point of order that its in not germane, and simply reiterates a previously-adopted resolution that is still in effect. Does anyone think I am on the wrong track?

I concur with my colleagues, but add that he still gets only one vote.

Concurring with Mr. Martin about interpretation of state law, I will just add that, so far as RONR is concenreed, choosing not to vote is abstaining, whether or not you say, "I abstain."

"Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, the number of days is computed by counting all calendar days (including holidays and weekends), excluding the day of the meeting but including the day the notice is sent." RONR, p. 92. ll. 22-25.

Unless I am missing something, it seems to me that you have a good point.

No rule in RONR would preclude it.

I concur with Mr. Katz. The motion is null and void, so just raise a Pont of Order and be prepared to appeal if the chair rules against the point.

I will add that if your idea is to first get the revision adopted as is, and then at the same meeting consider amendments to the newly-adopted revision, that won’t work (unless the revised bylaws contain some very unusual amendment provisions). Once adopted, the revision, including its amendment provisions, will be effective immediately. So any amendments to the new documents would have to follow whatever notice provisions are continued in the document’s amendment provisions. And if (unwisely) the revision contains no provision for its own amendment, the RONR default is that amendment requires previous notice and a two-thirds vote. Just follow the advice from Mr. Brown and Mr. Coronote, and you should be OK.

It's possible that the Study Guide didn't get anything wrong, and that the OP just misread the question or the answers. But I don't have my copy handy to check (and even if I find it, it may not be the current one).

Thanks, Dan. That makes sense.