Amending Amounts w/o Filling Blanks

[Jachimow]

A motion is made to allocate $300 toward a cause. It is then moved to amend the amount to $400. The amendment fails. May a member subsequently move to amend with still a different amount or, since the membership decided to vote the amendment down, is the main motion "fixed" with regard to amount?

I realize that a more effective method of setting an amount would be a motion to fill a blank, but this is what I have to deal with.

Chris J.

[Chris Harrison]

A motion is made to allocate $300 toward a cause. It is then moved to amend the amount to $400. The amendment fails. May a member subsequently move to amend with still a different amount or, since the membership decided to vote the amendment down, is the main motion "fixed" with regard to amount?

I realize that a more effective method of setting an amount would be a motion to fill a blank, but this is what I have to deal with.

Chris J.

Any number can be moved as an amendment (except for $400 unless the decision to defeat the amendment was Reconsidered).

[tctheatc]

A motion is made to allocate $300 toward a cause. It is then moved to amend the amount to $400. The amendment fails. May a member subsequently move to amend with still a different amount or, since the membership decided to vote the amendment down, is the main motion "fixed" with regard to amount?

I realize that a more effective method of setting an amount would be a motion to fill a blank, but this is what I have to deal with.

Maybe it would be more effective, maybe not. But know that even with the 400$ amendment, that itself could be amended, too. That might be more efficient. IOW, the motion is made to spend 300$. An amendment is made to change it to 400$. In the discussion of the 400, you get a sense that people want it to be 350 and split the difference. Amend the amendment to 350, vote on that amendment. If it passes, then you vote on the motion as amended.

[George Mervosh]

I realize that a more effective method of setting an amount would be a motion to fill a blank, but this is what I have to deal with.

Chris J.

Why?

[Rob Elsman]

A motion is made to allocate $300 toward a cause. It is then moved to amend the amount to $400. The amendment fails. May a member subsequently move to amend with still a different amount or, since the membership decided to vote the amendment down, is the main motion "fixed" with regard to amount?

I realize that a more effective method of setting an amount would be a motion to fill a blank, but this is what I have to deal with.

Chris J.

No. A motion to strike out $300 and insert some other amount, say $500, is not in order, since it presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400. However, the previously-rejected amendment can be amended upon reconsideration and adopted, as amended.

[Guest Chris J.]

No. A motion to strike out $300 and insert some other amount, say $500, is not in order, since it presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400. However, the previously-rejected amendment can be amended upon reconsideration and adopted, as amended.

This is what I surmised, but the comments above yours claim otherwise. Can anyone provide a citation for their argument?

Chris J.

[Guest Chris J.]

Why?

Because I am neither a member nor the chairperson.

[Josh Martin]

Any number can be moved as an amendment (except for $400 unless the decision to defeat the amendment was Reconsidered).

Well, within reason. I think I'd be inclined to rule an amendment for $401 out of order, for instance. The basic principle is that a motion which presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected amendment is not in order. How that principle is applied in specific circumstances is a judgment call.

No. A motion to strike out $300 and insert some other amount, say $500, is not in order, since it presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400. However, the previously-rejected amendment can be amended upon reconsideration and adopted, as amended.

I don't follow your logic. What is your reasoning behind suggesting that $400 and $500 are substantially the same question? There seems to be a fairly substantial difference between the two amounts. If your argument is that the $400 amendment must have been defeated because the amount was too high, I disagree. For all we know, the amendment was defeated because it was too low, and the members wanted an even higher amount.

Because I am neither a member nor the chairperson.

Then I take it you are the parliamentarian or a staff member or something?

[tctheatc]

If there are $450 in the coffers, I'd argue that $400 and $500 are substantially different as the latter brings bankruptcy.

[Rob Elsman]

This is what I surmised, but the comments above yours claim otherwise. Can anyone provide a citation for their argument?

Chris J.

The second amendment breaches the rule against renewal of the same, or substantially the same, amendment to the same main motion during the same session. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 327, ll. 1-6. The general principle that lies behind this rule is found on p. 326, ll. 3-7.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, within reason. I think I'd be inclined to rule an amendment for $401 out of order, for instance. The basic principle is that a motion which presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected amendment is not in order. How that principle is applied in specific circumstances is a judgment call.

I don't follow your logic. What is your reasoning behind suggesting that $400 and $500 are substantially the same question? There seems to be a fairly substantial difference between the two amounts. If your argument is that the $400 amendment must have been defeated because the amount was too high, I disagree. For all we know, the amendment was defeated because it was too low, and the members wanted an even higher amount.

Then I take it you are the parliamentarian or a staff member or something?

My reasoning has nothing to do with the amount of money in the second amendment. It has everything to do with the fact that both motions to Amend present substantially the same question. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 327, ll. 1-6.

[Rob Elsman]

If there are $450 in the coffers, I'd argue that $400 and $500 are substantially different as the latter brings bankruptcy.

If there is only $450 to expend, an amendment proposing to expend $500 is out of order on account that it is absurd, RONR (10th ed.), p. 133, l. 1.

[Josh Martin]

It has everything to do with the fact that both motions to Amend present substantially the same question. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 327, ll. 1-6.

I understand that this is your position. I don't understand why you believe they both present substantially the same question.

[Rob Elsman]

I understand that this is your position. I don't understand why you believe they both present substantially the same question.

Both amendments propose to modify the main motion with respect to the amount of money to be spent.

[Josh Martin]

Both amendments propose to modify the main motion with respect to the amount of money to be spent.

Interesting. I was not under the impression that the "substantially the same question" rules were so broad with respect to amendments. If this is the case, the original poster should try harder to convince the assembly that the procedure of filling blanks would be a good idea, as the alternative will involve a lot of motions to Reconsider if there is considerable disagreement on the amount.

[Rob Elsman]

Interesting. I was not under the impression that the "substantially the same question" rules were so broad with respect to amendments. If this is the case, the original poster should try harder to convince the assembly that the procedure of filling blanks would be a good idea, as the alternative will involve a lot of motions to Reconsider if there is considerable disagreement on the amount.

Unless it is materially amended upon reconsideration, the primary amendment cannot be reconsidered a second time, RONR (10th ed.), p. 327, ll. 21-26.

[Gary Novosielski]

Both amendments propose to modify the main motion with respect to the amount of money to be spent.

Well, certainly, but spending different amounts of money does not present substantially the same question, unless you believe that all amounts of money are substantially the same.

If so, kindly lend me $1000 and I'll pay you back substantially the same amount on Tuesday.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, certainly, but spending different amounts of money does not present substantially the same question, unless you believe that all amounts of money are substantially the same.

If so, kindly lend me $1000 and I'll pay you back substantially the same amount on Tuesday.

C'mon, Gary. Do you really believe I think all amounts of money are substantially the same? Do you actually think I'm arguing here that all amounts of money are substantially the same? Really?

[Gary Novosielski]

C'mon, Gary. Do you really believe I think all amounts of money are substantially the same? Do you actually think I'm arguing here that all amounts of money are substantially the same? Really?

No, of course not.

I just believe that's what you said.

But I disagree. An amendment to spend $100 is not essentially the same question as an amendment to spend $500.

[Dan Honemann]

It seems to me that Mr. Elsman may be confusing the situation here with that which exists after a main motion has been rejected.

If a motion to contribute $300 to charity X is rejected, I agree that it would not be in order, during the same session, to move to contribute $400 to charity X, since such a motion presents substantially the same question as the one already rejected. The primary thrust of the motion rejected was that a contribution be made to charity X, and the assembly has said no.

While a motion to contribute $300 to charity X is pending, however, it is in order to move to amend it by striking out $300 and inserting $400, and if that motion to amend is rejected, it is in order to move to amend by striking out $300 and inserting $350. The question now being decided is, if any contribution at all is to be made, what should be the amount of that contribution.

However, while a main motion to contribute $300 and a proposed primary amendment to strike $300 and insert $400 are pending, a member who wants to contribute some amount other than $300 or $400 would be well advised to move to amend the pending primary amendment by striking out $400 and inserting the amount he wants (or move to create a blank), because if he doesn’t and the primary amendment is adopted, the amount of the contribution (if one is to be made) has been determined, and a reconsideration will be needed in order to change it.

[Rob Elsman]

It seems to me that Mr. Elsman may be confusing the situation here with that which exists after a main motion has been rejected.

If a motion to contribute $300 to charity X is rejected, I agree that it would not be in order, during the same session, to move to contribute $400 to charity X, since such a motion presents substantially the same question as the one already rejected. The primary thrust of the motion rejected was that a contribution be made to charity X, and the assembly has said no.

While a motion to contribute $300 to charity X is pending, however, it is in order to move to amend it by striking out $300 and inserting $400, and if that motion to amend is rejected, it is in order to move to amend by striking out $300 and inserting $350. The question now being decided is, if any contribution at all is to be made, what should be the amount of that contribution.

However, while a main motion to contribute $300 and a proposed primary amendment to strike $300 and insert $400 are pending, a member who wants to contribute some amount other than $300 or $400 would be well advised to move to amend the pending primary amendment by striking out $400 and inserting the amount he wants (or move to create a blank), because if he doesn’t and the primary amendment is adopted, the amount of the contribution (if one is to be made) has been determined, and a reconsideration will be needed in order to change it.

I can assure you I am not confusing this situation with that which exists after a main motion has been rejected.

A primary amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400 and a primary amendment to strike out $300 and insert $350 both ask substantially the same question: If any contribution at all is to be made, what should be the amount of that contribution? But the rule concerning the renewal of an amendment to a main motion does not allow the admission of a second amendment that presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected one, the proper course being to bring the rejected amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400 back before the assembly upon reconsideration for further modification by way of secondary amendments or creating and filling a blank. As long as the previously-rejected amendment can be reached upon reconsideration, it is not proper to admit another amendment to the same main motion that presents substantially the same question.

[Dan Honemann]

I can assure you I am not confusing this situation with that which exists after a main motion has been rejected.

A primary amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400 and a primary amendment to strike out $300 and insert $350 both ask substantially the same question: If any contribution at all is to be made, what should be the amount of that contribution? But the rule concerning the renewal of an amendment to a main motion does not allow the admission of a second amendment that presents substantially the same question as the previously-rejected one, the proper course being to bring the rejected amendment to strike out $300 and insert $400 back before the assembly upon reconsideration for further modification by way of secondary amendments or creating and filling a blank. As long as the previously-rejected amendment can be reached upon reconsideration, it is not proper to admit another amendment to the same main motion that presents substantially the same question.

This is just flat-out wrong

[Jachimow]

This is just flat-out wrong

I can see both sides of the argument. Mr. Honemann seems to be arguing that, so long as the primary amendment seeking to change the amount is defeated, additional primary amendments can be introduced seeking to change the amount. Once one such amendment is accepted, the amount in the main motion is "fixed" unless reconsidered by the assembly. It sounds as if amendments are immune from the idea of "presenting substantially the same question." So long as the amendment is defeated, similar amendments can be introduced.

Mr. Elsman is arguing that a primary amendment seeking to change an amount, whether accepted or defeated, "protects" the main motion against additional attempts to change the amount unless the previous decision is reconsidered.

Does that seem about right?

I think that one of the root problems here is that the main motion is really about two questions, not one. The first is whether or not to support a particular charity, while the second is about how much support to give. Can I ask: If the amendment were to change the organization to whom the funds were to be provided, which process would prevail, Mr. Honemann's or Mr. Elsman's?

Chris J.

As to my role with the organization, I am an outside observer with too much idle curiosity.

[Shmuel Gerber]

This is what I surmised, but the comments above yours claim otherwise. Can anyone provide a citation for their argument?

Chris J.

"If a motion to strike out and insert is voted down, it is still in order: ...

• to make another motion to strike out and insert -- provided that the change in either the wording to be struck out or the wording to be inserted presents a question materially different from the one that was voted down."

RONR (10th ed.), pp. 144-145.

[Dan Honemann]

I think that one of the root problems here is that the main motion is really about two questions, not one. The first is whether or not to support a particular charity, while the second is about how much support to give. Can I ask: If the amendment were to change the organization to whom the funds were to be provided, which process would prevail, Mr. Honemann's or Mr. Elsman's?

Chris J.

Absent additional facts which might have a material bearing on this question, the answer is that a proposed amendment to change the organization to whom the funds are to be provided (that is, a proposed amendment to strike out "charity X" and insert "charity Y") would be out of order because it is not germane to the question of whether or not a contribution should be made to charity X.