Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Amending Amounts w/o Filling Blanks


Jachimow

Recommended Posts

"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.

That's right. This citation is a particular application of what is said more generally in Standard Descriptive Characteristic 6 of the subsidiary motion Amend, RONR (10th ed.), p. 128, ll. 13-17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

And therein lies the difficulty. You see the amendments as presenting substantially the same question. But while they are certainly similar, I don't believe they are the same, or even substantially so. The substantial difference in the amounts of money makes them "materially different" questions.

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.

Oooh. I was on board until then, but even as nicely hedged as that statement is, it seems to me that this question could be just as readily understood as:

"To which charity should our recent $300 windfall be donated?" In which case, changing the amount of money could be out of order, as not germane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooh. I was on board until then, but even as nicely hedged as that statement is, it seems to me that this question could be just as readily understood as:

"To which charity should our recent $300 windfall be donated?" In which case, changing the amount of money could be out of order, as not germane.

Well, you are certainly now introducing those additional facts to which I referred.

I recommend reading the discussion of germaneness on pages 19-22 in Parliamentary Law, paying particularly close attention to (d) on page 20.

There are substantial difficulties involved in attempting to deal with simplistic questions presented in the abstract, but sometimes we try. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

That's right. This citation is a particular application of what is said more generally in Standard Descriptive Characteristic 6 of the subsidiary motion Amend, RONR (10th ed.), p. 128, ll. 13-17.

I know that what I posted is right, because I took it straight from the book. But I thought I was using it to disprove what you said earlier. Oh, well. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that what I posted is right, because I took it straight from the book. But I thought I was using it to disprove what you said earlier. Oh, well. :lol:

And I also believe that it does.

But Mr. Elsman, for reasons I am truly trying to understand, while he admits that $200 and $300 are not substantially the same amount of money, contends that "Shall we spend $200?" and "Shall we spend $300?" ask substantially the same question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of a motion “to make a contribution to charity X in the amount of $300”, let’s suppose a main motion is made “to paint the gazebo red”, and then a motion to amend the main motion by striking out “red” and inserting “green” is rejected. Chris J. (or maybe somebody else) wants to know if a member may subsequently move to amend by substituting still a different color or, since the membership decided to vote the first proposed amendment down, is the main motion "fixed" with regard to color. (He knows all about creating and filing blanks, but says forget about this device for the moment.

I’ll bet Chris H. says yes, a motion may now be made to amend the main motion by striking out “red” and inserting any color other than “green” (so let’s say “blue”). As usual, Chris H. will be exactly right, and if this “blue” proposal is also rejected, a motion may then be made to amend the main motion by striking out “red” and inserting any color other than either “green” or “blue” (and yeah, yeah, we ought to be filing blanks, but forget about it).

Now, suppose the motion “to paint the gazebo red” is simply voted down. My guess is that, absent some extraordinary facts we don’t know about, it will not then be in order to make a motion, during the same session, “to paint the gazebo green”, since the assembly has decided not to paint the gazebo. If it was only concerned about the color, it would have resolved that question while the motion to paint the gazebo red was pending.

And now, suppose that while the motion “to paint the gazebo red” is pending, a motion is made to amend it by striking out “gazebo” and inserting “club house”. My guess is that (absent some very extraordinary facts we don’t know about) this motion to amend will not be in order because it is not germane to the question about whether or not the gazebo needs a coat of paint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, suppose the motion “to paint the gazebo red” is simply voted down. My guess is that, absent some extraordinary facts we don’t know about, it will not then be in order to make a motion, during the same session, “to paint the gazebo green”, since the assembly has decided not to paint the gazebo. If it was only concerned about the color, it would have resolved that question while the motion to paint the gazebo red was pending.

Agreed, although I'd say this presumes an adequate knowledge on the part of the membership in handling motions properly. While you say they have decided not to paint the barn, they may be thinking they've decided not to paint the barn red, and would now be open to someone making a motion of a different color. They may think that's how it's done, being less familiar with Amend or Reconsider, and so on. Just a thought....

And now, suppose that while the motion “to paint the gazebo red” is pending, a motion is made to amend it by striking out “gazebo” and inserting “club house”. My guess is that (absent some very extraordinary facts we don’t know about) this motion to amend will not be in order because it is not germane to the question about whether or not the gazebo needs a coat of paint.

Perhaps Eddie comes in and tells everyone "the local paint store gave me a couple gallons of red paint that was a mis-order. Maybe we can use it around here." Jimmy says "I move we paint the gazebo red." It of course is voted down. So Ralph says "I move we paint the tool shed red." And now the president rules Ralph's motion out of order and a fight ensues. (okay, I made that last part up) But you're saying the motion to paint the toolshed has to hold off until the next session/meeting? The motion to paint the gazebo can't even be Reconsidered and then Amended to strike gazebo and insert toolshed?

~~~

Again, I think this presumes a certain level of parliamentary knowledge, but also of intent. It may be that what the guys are trying to do is spruce up the place a bit, and if they can't agree to the paint the gazebo (red), maybe they can agree to paint the toolshed. That fact that a motion was made first and defeated to paint the gazebo, and now that action prevents consideration of painting the toolshed at least until the next session, seems a bit restrictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're saying the motion to paint the toolshed has to hold off until the next session/meeting?

I don't think that's what Mr. Honemann is saying and this is the problem with hypothetical situations combined with the continuing changing of a word here and there.

A motion to paint the gazebo . . . red or blue or green or not at all is substantially different from a motion to use the gift of red paint to paint . . . the gazebo, the toolshed, the clubhouse, or the town.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what Mr. Honemann is saying and this is the problem with hypothetical situations combined with the continuing changing of a word here and there.

A motion to paint the gazebo . . . red or blue or green or not at all is substantially different from a motion to use the gift of red paint to paint . . . the gazebo, the toolshed, the clubhouse, or the town.

The source of the paint ( a gift in hand today, or a purchase to be made next week) is immaterial to the question. The motion isn't "to use the gift paint...." The motion is "to paint the gazebo red." I'm not varying from that. Whether Jimmy makes it because Eddie has some free paint today, or because he (Jimmy) thinks the gazebo is looking a bit lackluster and wants to spend some money, the motion (as worded, which is key here) is the same. "I move to paint the gazebo red." I haven't deviated from that. And from that all troubles ensue.

Can we use a different color? Can we paint a different structure? What exactly is in order, and what parliamentary steps must we take to get a coat of paint up somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we use a different color? Can we paint a different structure? What exactly is in order, and what parliamentary steps must we take to get a coat of paint up somewhere?

It depends.

That is, it depends on the context in which the motion is made. Determining whether something is germane is as much art as science and, in the end, is a judgment call. So you may not have changed the wording of the motion but you've changed the context and, therefore, the conditions under which the germaneness (I prefer "germanity") is to be evaluated.

It's as if you asked your best friend, "Should I take Mary to the prom?". He might suggest you take someone else but, in a different context, he might suggest you take Mary some place else. One suggestion would be appropriate (i.e. germane), the other would not. It depends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend would probably suggest someone else take Mary to the prom and I take his sister. Move to Reconsider!

But yes, I think context may play into it, which can't necessarily be regulated by rule and bylaw. If every organization out there was well-versed in the subtleties of RONR and parliamentary procedure so as to properly handle such situations and arrive at decision properly (procedurally) agreed upon by the majority, it would be a slow day here at the forum. Until then.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, a third context I hadn't considered.

It comes down to just where the (implicit) blank is located.

...and that is what I believe I will take from this conversation. The chairperson needs the context of the conversation to understand what the "question" actually is. So much of this may be a case-by-case basis, with the membership entitled to Appeal from the Decision of the Chair?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of a motion “to make a contribution to charity X in the amount of $300”, let’s suppose a main motion is made “to paint the gazebo red”, and then a motion to amend the main motion by striking out “red” and inserting “green” is rejected. Chris J. (or maybe somebody else) wants to know if a member may subsequently move to amend by substituting still a different color or, since the membership decided to vote the first proposed amendment down, is the main motion "fixed" with regard to color. (He knows all about creating and filing blanks, but says forget about this device for the moment.

I’ll bet Chris H. says yes, a motion may now be made to amend the main motion by striking out “red” and inserting any color other than “green” (so let’s say “blue”). As usual, Chris H. will be exactly right, and if this “blue” proposal is also rejected, a motion may then be made to amend the main motion by striking out “red” and inserting any color other than either “green” or “blue” (and yeah, yeah, we ought to be filing blanks, but forget about it).

Now, suppose the motion “to paint the gazebo red” is simply voted down. My guess is that, absent some extraordinary facts we don’t know about, it will not then be in order to make a motion, during the same session, “to paint the gazebo green”, since the assembly has decided not to paint the gazebo. If it was only concerned about the color, it would have resolved that question while the motion to paint the gazebo red was pending.

And now, suppose that while the motion “to paint the gazebo red” is pending, a motion is made to amend it by striking out “gazebo” and inserting “club house”. My guess is that (absent some very extraordinary facts we don’t know about) this motion to amend will not be in order because it is not germane to the question about whether or not the gazebo needs a coat of paint.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whether green or blue, both amendments answer the same question: If the gazebo is to be painted at all, what color is it be painted? Members who might prefer a color other than red or green will want to try to perfect "green" while the primary amendment is pending, since another primary amendment will not be in order once this question has been decided (unless, of course, it is brought back before the assembly upon reconsideration). RONR (10th ed.), p. 128, ll. 13-17; p. 327, ll. 1-6. Mr. Gerber previously brought up what is said on p. 145, ll. 4-7; but, what is said there only applies if what is to be inserted presents a materially different question than the previously-rejected one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whether green or blue, both amendments answer the same question: If the gazebo is to be painted at all, what color is it be painted? Members who might prefer a color other than red or green will want to try to perfect "green" while the primary amendment is pending, since another primary amendment will not be in order once this question has been decided (unless, of course, it is brought back before the assembly upon reconsideration). RONR (10th ed.), p. 128, ll. 13-17; p. 327, ll. 1-6. Mr. Gerber previously brought up what is said on p. 145, ll. 4-7; but, what is said there only applies if what is to be inserted presents a materially different question than the previously-rejected one.

Exactly, and painting something Day-Glo® orange is materially different from painting it gray. Phrasing it in such a way as to intentionally conflate the two is not productive. The question "If painted, should it be orange rather than of red?" is a materially different question from "If painted, should it be gray rather than red?"

The fact that it's possible to generalize the questions until they sound alike is not the point. Almost any two questions could be massaged to sound similar. But if it's reasonable to consider them materially different, then they should get the benefit of the doubt.

The reasoning behind this is, I assume, to prevent things from degenerating into dilatory territory. But if people have a good-faith desire to get the color right, they ought to be able to.


P.S. Don't blame me. Dan revived it. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Whether green or blue, both amendments answer the same question: If the gazebo is to be painted at all, what color is it be painted? Members who might prefer a color other than red or green will want to try to perfect "green" while the primary amendment is pending, since another primary amendment will not be in order once this question has been decided (unless, of course, it is brought back before the assembly upon reconsideration). RONR (10th ed.), p. 128, ll. 13-17; p. 327, ll. 1-6. Mr. Gerber previously brought up what is said on p. 145, ll. 4-7; but, what is said there only applies if what is to be inserted presents a materially different question than the previously-rejected one.

Mr. Elsman, I'm wondering if you might indulge me, and with hope, to the benefit of (some of the) others here. Given either motion (your choice):

  1. to paint the gazebo red, primary amendment to strike red and insert green defeated, or
  2. to allocate $300 to charity X, primary amendment to strike $300 and insert $400 defeated

can you provide an example of a subsequent primary amendment that would be in order while the main motion is still pending? That is, that presents enough of a materially different question so as to not cause it (amendment) to be out of order, nor fail the germane test?

Please, I'm sincerely not trying to put you on the spot. But perhaps by providing an example of what would be in order, at least I can better grasp your position. If you'd rather not pursue this, no problem. Just wanted to offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...