Majority of Entire Membership as Vote Required

[Dan Honemann]

To me, this situation seems to closely mirror the situation of debating a question when a quorum has disappeared (p. 338, l. 8-22). Some motions require a quorum and some don't. Some require MEM and some don't.

1. The presence of a quorum, once initially established, is presumed to continue. It seems reasonable for the same to apply to MEM.

2. If the chair notices the absence of a quorum, it is his duty to declare the fact, (1)before stating the question on a motion requiring a quorum, and (2)before taking any vote requiring a quorum. If we apply this to MEM, George's two-prong time table seems to make sense.

3. However, if a point of order is made concerning the lack of a quorum during debate on a motion, debate must not continue, even though it is possible for a quorum to appear in time for the vote. So, if we apply this to MEM, a point of order, concerning the lack of MEM during debate on a motion requiring it, should be ruled "well taken," even though a MEM could show up in time for the vote.

4. Since the motion was in order when it was moved, due to the fact that a MEM was present (or at least no point of order was made at that time), debate can be allowed to continue, until a point of order is made, so long as it does not interrupt a person speaking, but the known absence of a MEM must be declared before a vote is taken, which makes sense, because taking a vote that requires a MEM when a MEM is not present is surely a waste of time.

5. An amendment that raises the requirement to a MEM, though in order at the time it was moved, cannot be put to a vote in the absence of a MEM, since adoption would be tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely, as it would move the original motion out of the reach of the assembly.

To me, it seems logical to look at a MEM as the "quorum" for the consideration of motions that require a MEM. It must be present to make the motions and to put them to a vote, and debate can be allowed to continue without it, but only until a point of order is made.

So, in response to the original question in post #1... I would rule the point well taken. Consideration of the amendment is no longer in order. However, Postpone Indefinitely is in order, if that is the intention of the assembly.

Tim, you've given us quite a bit to think about. Many thanks!

[Shmuel Gerber]

They started considering it without a point of order being raised according to the initial question, so they're in the middle of it, and all I'm saying is I'm not inclined at that point in the scenario to rule it out of order since we don't know if those conditions will continue to exist until right before the question is put. If the point of order was raised immediately, before the question was being considered, of course, well taken.

That's my take on it, and I still think the assembly and the integrity of the rule is protected in the end.

So as I understand it, your position is that a point of order would be timely if raised immediatly when a motion requrining MEM is first made with MEM not pressnt, but if not made at that time, the only other time it could be raised is when the question (still requiring MEM) is put? An interesting take; a bifurcated timeliness requirement. I am not entirely convinced, but I can see some logic to that position.

George didn't say that at all. He was responding to a question about a scenario in which a main motion that does not require the vote of a MEM is pending, and an amendment to that main motion is offered that would have the effect, depending on whether a MEM will be present at the time the vote is taken on the main motion, of preventing the main motion from being adopted in its amended form.

The question involves enforcement of the specific rule that under particular scenarios, "no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that proposes a change going beyond the scope of notice which was given, for the reason that adoption of such a motion will destroy the effect of the notice, and the motion is thus tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely" (p. 297).

I tend to agree with George that if a point of order is to be raised about this, it should be done right away when the amendment is introduced, and not during the debate. I'm not so sure, however, that after it has been properly admitted and debated, it should still be subject to a point of order before a vote is taken. I tend to agree with Rob Elsman that the assembly should have the choice of how to dispose of it, taking into account the chances of having or not having a MEM present at the time of the final vote on the main motion.

[Tim Wynn]

I'm not so sure, however, that after it has been properly admitted and debated, it should still be subject to a point of order before a vote is taken. I tend to agree with Rob Elsman that the assembly should have the choice of how to dispose of it, taking into account the chances of having or not having a MEM present at the time of the final vote on the main motion.

If, in a suddenly inquorate meeting (where no business can be transacted and therefore no business can be delayed), members cannot debate a motion in the face of a point of order, why should members in a quorate meeting be allowed to stall around in debate on a motion that cannot be put to a vote (thereby blocking legitimate business), in the hopes that a MEM will appear?

As for the assembly disposing of the motion, there’s no legitimate action it can take on the subsidiary motion to amend, without a MEM. It can’t adopt it (that would be tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely), so it can’t legitimately reject it. A secondary amendment that proposes a return to the scope of the notice would just be an indirect way of deciding the same question.

The main motion could be postponed or laid on the table, along with the amendment, but I don’t see that these options justify allowing debate to continue on the primary amendment.

[J. J.]

3. However, if a point of order is made concerning the lack of a quorum during debate on a motion, debate must not continue, even though it is possible for a quorum to appear in time for the vote. So, if we apply this to MEM, a point of order, concerning the lack of MEM during debate on a motion requiring it, should be ruled "well taken," even though a MEM could show up in time for the vote.

In terms of analogy, I do not believe that this works. If a quorum is not present, the assembly may not adopt the motion, but the motion itself is not ruled out of order. While consideration cannot be continued, the motion itself is not subject to a point of order.

[Tim Wynn]

In terms of analogy, I do not believe that this works. If a quorum is not present, the assembly may not adopt the motion, but the motion itself is not ruled out of order. While consideration cannot be continued, the motion itself is not subject to a point of order.

If a quorum is not present, the motion cannot be made, nor can it be put to a vote. It is out of order to do these things.

In these ways, it is identical to the rules regarding the handling of a subsidiary motion to amend that would increase the vote requirement to a vote of a MEM, in the absence of a MEM.

[Shmuel Gerber]

If, in a suddenly inquorate meeting (where no business can be transacted and therefore no business can be delayed), members cannot debate a motion in the face of a point of order, why should members in a quorate meeting be allowed to stall around in debate on a motion that cannot be put to a vote (thereby blocking legitimate business), in the hopes that a MEM will appear?

Which motion "that cannot be put to a vote" are you referring to?

As for the assembly disposing of the motion, there’s no legitimate action it can take on the subsidiary motion to amend, without a MEM. It can’t adopt it (that would be tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely), so it can’t legitimately reject it.

And what's so terrible about adopting something that might be "tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely"? While it is not in order for an amendment to be deliberately placed before the assembly that would make the amended motion impossible to adopt, if a situation should happen to develop whereby it appears that this might become the case after the fact (because some members leave, for example), I see no real harm being done. It's not as though some rule will be broken if the assembly votes on the amendment, or even on the main motion in amended form. And certainly there is nothing wrong with rejecting the amendment.

A secondary amendment that proposes a return to the scope of the notice would just be an indirect way of deciding the same question.

I agree that possible secondary amendments really don't have a bearing on the question.

The main motion could be postponed or laid on the table, along with the amendment, but I don’t see that these options justify allowing debate to continue on the primary amendment.

There isn't anything wrong with the primary amendment, other than the practical question whether the amended motion could then be adopted. While the amendment should not be admitted in the first place when it would clearly torpedo the main motion, I don't think its legitimacy should depend on the moment-to-moment attendance level at the meeting. This is a very different thing than the quorum requirement, which prevents the assembly from acting at all (to adopt, reject, or do anything else to the motion) in the absence of a quorum.

[J. J.]

If a quorum is not present, the motion cannot be made, nor can it be put to a vote. It is out of order to do these things.

In these ways, it is identical to the rules regarding the handling of a subsidiary motion to amend that would increase the vote requirement to a vote of a MEM, in the absence of a MEM.

Well, suppose that the motion has been made with a quorum present, which, if you substitute "quorum" for MEM, is the first scenario. The motion could be made when a quorum is present and was in order at the time it was made (on that ground). The motion, while it could not be adopted, is not out of order. If the assembly would successfully take steps to obtain a quorum, the motion could be adopted.

[Dan Honemann]

And what's so terrible about adopting something that might be "tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely"? While it is not in order for an amendment to be deliberately placed before the assembly that would make the amended motion impossible to adopt, if a situation should happen to develop whereby it appears that this might become the case after the fact (because some members leave, for example), I see no real harm being done. It's not as though some rule will be broken if the assembly votes on the amendment, or even on the main motion in amended form. And certainly there is nothing wrong with rejecting the amendment.

[snip]

There isn't anything wrong with the primary amendment, other than the practical question whether the amended motion could then be adopted. While the amendment should not be admitted in the first place when it would clearly torpedo the main motion, I don't think its legitimacy should depend on the moment-to-moment attendance level at the meeting. This is a very different thing than the quorum requirement, which prevents the assembly from acting at all (to adopt, reject, or do anything else to the motion) in the absence of a quorum.

Well, let me see if I understand what is being said here.

If the proposed (beyond the scope of notice) amendment is moved at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present, the motion to amend is not in order (p. 297, ll. 13-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27) but a point of order concerning this violation of the rules must be made promptly at that time. If consideration of this motion to amend is allowed to begin, then, regardless of whether or not a majority of the entire membership is present at any time or from time to time during the ongoing deliberations, no point of order can be raised concerning the scope of notice violation unless the motion to amend is adopted and then the main motion as so amended is declared adopted at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present (thus giving rise to a continuing breach)?

I'm really not at all sure that this is what you are saying, but neither am I suggesting that I think it is wrong. I'm just trying to understand it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, let me see if I understand what is being said here.

If the proposed (beyond the scope of notice) amendment is moved at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present, the motion to amend is not in order (p. 297, ll. 13-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27) but a point of order concerning this violation of the rules must be made promptly at that time. If consideration of this motion to amend is allowed to begin, then, regardless of whether or not a majority of the entire membership is present at any time or from time to time during the ongoing deliberations, no point of order can be raised concerning the scope of notice violation unless the motion to amend is adopted and then the main motion as so amended is declared adopted at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present (thus giving rise to a continuing breach)?

I'm really not at all sure that this is what you are saying, but neither am I suggesting that I think it is wrong. I'm just trying to understand it.

Perhaps I should have started off by saying that I don't agree with the premise of the question, although I was reluctant to do so. (The reason I jumped in to the conversation was that it started veering off into a question about offering a main motion that requires a MEM for its adoption when there is not one present, which I think is not the same question at all.)

RONR does not clearly and explicitly say that an amendment that goes beyond the scope of notice should be ruled out of order if a majority of the entire membership is not present at the time it is made. However, I agree that it should be ruled out of order in such a case, because it would then prevent the main motion from being adopted and therefore serves no useful purpose. As RONR says, it is tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely if a MEM will not be present at the time of the vote on the main motion. So, rather than hypothesizing that perhaps the consideration of the question will drag on long enough for a MEM to appear (or that the amendment will be amended), the chair should simply rule the amendment out of order.

But once the amendment has been made and stated in good faith, I don't think it should be ruled out of order simply because the circumstances have changed and it seems not possible for the motion as amended to be adopted at a particular moment. There is not truly a "scope of notice violation", because a vote of a majority of the membership is an alternative to previous notice (in the example we're discussing), and that is the theory under which the amendment was permitted in the first place. If it happens to be impossible and a vote is taken anyway (instead of, say, being postponed until a time when a MEM is present), then the motion will be rejected if the vote is counted correctly, or else its improper adoption will give rise to a continuing breach.

[edited to add words "a vote of"]

[Tim Wynn]

Which motion "that cannot be put to a vote" are you referring to?

I'm referring to the subsidiary motion to amend beyond the scope of the notice.

"... no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that proposes a change going beyond the scope of the notice which was given, for the reason that adoption of such a motion will destroy the effect of the notice, and the motion is thus tantamount to a motion to Postpone Indefinitely." - p. 297, l. 18-22

Even if in order when moved, once the subsidiary motion to amend becomes tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely, I believe the motion would have to be ruled out of order or stated as a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.

And what's so terrible about adopting something that might be "tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely"?

The chair should rule it out of order or state it as a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, similar to the instance on p. 176, l. 18-21.

Just as the chair shouldn’t allow a motion to Lay on the Table to be used in place of Postpone Definitely, he shouldn’t allow the subsidiary motion to Amend to be used in place of Postpone Indefinitely.

While it is not in order for an amendment to be deliberately placed before the assembly that would make the amended motion impossible to adopt, if a situation should happen to develop whereby it appears that this might become the case after the fact (because some members leave, for example), I see no real harm being done.

There are many instances where a motion will be legitimately introduced and will become meaningless or absurd during its consideration. The fact that it was legitimately introduced doesn’t make it any less meaningless or absurd.

Whatever harm would occur by allowing the INTRODUCTION of the motion under certain circumstances, I see no indication that the harm would be any different by allowing the ADOPTION of the motion under the same circumstances (especially since the rule prohibiting its introduction is based on the harm done by its adoption; see below).

It's not as though some rule will be broken if the assembly votes on the amendment, or even on the main motion in amended form.

It’s a waste of time to go through the process of taking a counted vote, when you already know the outcome (35 ayes needed to adopt, with 22 in attendance).

Also, I don’t think any vote is in order when it can only have one possible outcome. Would you say it’s in order to vote to Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes, when a MEM is not present? I don’t see that the assembly can decide that it’s okay to have a vote. This would be a waste of time, equal to voting on a bylaw amendment without required notice, using the logic that the assembly is free to reject the amendment... even though it cannot adopt it.

And certainly there is nothing wrong with rejecting the amendment.

As stated above, if adopting the amendment is not a possibility (being tantamount to Postpone Indefinitely), that leaves rejection as the only outcome of the vote. So, the vote seems pointless and a waste of time.

There isn't anything wrong with the primary amendment, other than the practical question whether the amended motion could then be adopted. While the amendment should not be admitted in the first place when it would clearly torpedo the main motion, I don't think its legitimacy should depend on the moment-to-moment attendance level at the meeting.

It’s ability to be adopted depends on the moment-to-moment attendance level. If a motion that is legitimately introduced and considered becomes, during consideration, a “clear torpedo to the main motion,” that is, if circumstance changes to make it inadmissible, why should it be in order to adopt it?

As referenced on p. 297, l. 18-22, the REASON for prohibiting its introduction is due to the damage caused by its ADOPTION. If you loophole around that and allow it to be adopted, because it was legitimately introduced, you've defeated the purpose of the rule and the protection it provides.

This is a very different thing than the quorum requirement, which prevents the assembly from acting at all (to adopt, reject, or do anything else to the motion) in the absence of a quorum.

It is different. However, I’m looking at the similarities. In both cases, the motion is not out of order based on its content; it is out of order based on the attendance in the meeting.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, let me see if I understand what is being said here.

If the proposed (beyond the scope of notice) amendment is moved at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present, the motion to amend is not in order (p. 297, ll. 13-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27) but a point of order concerning this violation of the rules must be made promptly at that time. If consideration of this motion to amend is allowed to begin, then, regardless of whether or not a majority of the entire membership is present at any time or from time to time during the ongoing deliberations, no point of order can be raised concerning the scope of notice violation unless the motion to amend is adopted and then the main motion as so amended is declared adopted at a time when a majority of the entire membership is not present (thus giving rise to a continuing breach)?

I'm really not at all sure that this is what you are saying, but neither am I suggesting that I think it is wrong. I'm just trying to understand it.

The main motion, as amended, cannot be put when a majority of the membership is not present, since, in effect, the question does not have an affirmative side--there is nothing for the assembly to decide. If the chair does not make this ruling when the time arrives to put the question, any member can do so at that time (interrupting the chairman before the first vote is cast) or afterward, as you suggest.

[Dan Honemann]

Perhaps I should have started off by saying that I don't agree with the premise of the question, ...

RONR does not clearly and explicitly say that an amendment that goes beyond the scope of notice should be ruled out of order if a majority of the entire membership is not present at the time it is made.

On page 297, line 18, I see that "no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that ...", and on page 576, line 25, I see that "no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that ..." Both of these statements are clearly intended to refer to the time that the motion is made (although the one on p. 576 may be a bit clearer in this respect).

[Rob Elsman]

On page 297, line 18, I see that "no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that ...", and on page 576, line 25, I see that "no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that ..." Both of these statements are clearly intended to refer to the time that the motion is made (although the one on p. 576 may be a bit clearer in this respect).

No question framed in the ordinary "yes/no" or "for/against" way can be made or put if there are not two rational sides--i.e., an affirmative side and a negative side. In other words, if the assembly cannot, for whatever reason, either agree to do what the motion proposes or agree not to do what the motion proposes, then the motion cannot be made or put. Such a motion is really a false question, since there is not a proposal that the assembly is free to decide either way.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On page 297, line 18, I see that "no subsidiary motion to amend is in order that ...", and on page 576, line 25, I see that "no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that ..." Both of these statements are clearly intended to refer to the time that the motion is made (although the one on p. 576 may be a bit clearer in this respect).

Yes, they are clearly intended to refer to the time that the motion is made, which is when the proper time to raise a point of order would be. But what the text on page 287 says is that in the situation when a majority of the entire membership is not present at the time the vote is taken on the main motion, the motion to amend is not in order (at the time it is made).

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, they are clearly intended to refer to the time that the motion is made, which is when the proper time to raise a point of order would be. But what the text on page 287 says is that in the situation when a majority of the entire membership is not present at the time the vote is taken on the main motion, the motion to amend is not in order (at the time it is made).

How about 576?

[Shmuel Gerber]

How about 576?

Grumble, grumble ... um, I suppose you're right.

But I think the text on page 287 is better. It explains the ambiguity of the rule much more clearly.

[Tim Wynn]

No question framed in the ordinary "yes/no" or "for/against" way can be made or put if there are not two rational sides--i.e., an affirmative side and a negative side. In other words, if the assembly cannot, for whatever reason, either agree to do what the motion proposes or agree not to do what the motion proposes, then the motion cannot be made or put. Such a motion is really a false question, since there is not a proposal that the assembly is free to decide either way.

I couldn't agree more... actually, I think I've already agreed 5 or 6 times.

[Shmuel Gerber]

There are many instances where a motion will be legitimately introduced and will become meaningless or absurd during its consideration. The fact that it was legitimately introduced doesn’t make it any less meaningless or absurd.

Whatever harm would occur by allowing the INTRODUCTION of the motion under certain circumstances, I see no indication that the harm would be any different by allowing the ADOPTION of the motion under the same circumstances (especially since the rule prohibiting its introduction is based on the harm done by its adoption; see below).

It’s a waste of time to go through the process of taking a counted vote, when you already know the outcome (35 ayes needed to adopt, with 22 in attendance).

Also, I don’t think any vote is in order when it can only have one possible outcome.

....

As referenced on p. 297, l. 18-22, the REASON for prohibiting its introduction is due to the damage caused by its ADOPTION. If you loophole around that and allow it to be adopted, because it was legitimately introduced, you've defeated the purpose of the rule and the protection it provides.

What protection does the rule provide? That a majority of the voters present can't defeat their preferred amended version instead of defeating the version for which notice was provided? I don't think the amended version is meaningless or absurd; it simply cannot obtain enough votes, at that particular time, to be adopted. Such a situation should be avoided when possible, but I don't think the assembly need get all twisted up (now the motion is in order, now it's not -- oh, wait, someone just came in, now it's in order again) over the procedure of it.

[Dan Honemann]

I couldn't agree more... actually, I think I've already agreed 5 or 6 times.

Okay, so do you agree with what is said in post #33 except that you would say that a point of order is appropriate as soon as the chair begins to put the main motion as amended to a vote?

[Dan Honemann]

No question framed in the ordinary "yes/no" or "for/against" way can be made or put if there are not two rational sides--i.e., an affirmative side and a negative side. In other words, if the assembly cannot, for whatever reason, either agree to do what the motion proposes or agree not to do what the motion proposes, then the motion cannot be made or put. Such a motion is really a false question, since there is not a proposal that the assembly is free to decide either way.

Okay, so do you agree with what is said in post #33 except that you would say that a point of order is appropriate as soon as the chair begins to put the main motion as amended to a vote?

[Rob Elsman]

Okay, so do you agree with what is said in post #33 except that you would say that a point of order is appropriate as soon as the chair begins to put the main motion as amended to a vote?

This is what makes your original post so interesting. Yes, I do agree with your reply #33. Once the question is in the control of the assembly, it is not possible to know in advance whether, in what cirucmstances, or in what form the main motion might be put.

[Tim Wynn]

Okay, so do you agree with what is said in post #33 except that you would say that a point of order is appropriate as soon as the chair begins to put the main motion as amended to a vote?

In the absence of a MEM, I believe the making of the subsidiary motion is out of order and the adoption of the subsidiary motion is out of order. That seems clear, from the cited text.

I don't see that the subsidiary motion can be adopted in the absence of a MEM, just because it was made with a MEM present.

Now, it gets a bit more theoretical...

Here’s my problem. With both of these factors (making and adopting) being out of order, I find it difficult to accept that the consideration of this subsidiary motion is in order, except by unanimous consent. Since debate on the subsidiary motion has turned into “discussion” without a valid motion pending, I’d like to think that a point of order could bring the assembly back to a question that it can actually decide.

I don’t want to belabor this analogy, but this is why I brought up the quorum analogy. The rules regarding a quorum recognize that when an assembly loses the ability to decide a question, its consideration should be allowed to continue only until a point of order is raised. The point of order essentially turns the assembly away from a question that it cannot decide, allowing it to consider a question that it can decide -- namely any of the four motions that are in order in the absence of a quorum.

In the case of the example we’ve been using here, upon a point of order, the subsidiary motion would cease to be pending and the assembly would return to the consideration of the main motion. If a member wants to again move the subsidiary motion to amend beyond the scope, the chair would easily rule it out of order, citing the absence of a MEM.

On the point of order during consideration of the subsidiary motion, I’d say, “The point is well taken. The motion to amend beyond the scope of the notice is no longer in order, as a majority of the entire membership is not present. The question is now on the [main motion].”

If it were a case of one or two members stepping out for a moment, the assembly is free to take a recess to recollect the necessary numbers before continuing with the consideration, and the chair can graciously advise the assembly of this.

However, in the worst-case scenario, the assembly adopts the main motion within the scope, and if and when the MEM returns, the motion to ASPA is made and adopted. For me, this bottom line is a big factor. Why be so concerned with protecting the biggest power* in an organization -- the MEM? It can protect itself, when it shows up. My concern is for the members who have to sit through debate on a subsidiary motion that's going nowhere.

*as far as standard voting is concerned

[Kim Goldsworthy]

It seems to be clear that,

IF

a proposed amendment to a pending main motion will, if adopted, change the vote required for adoption of the main motion, as amended, to the vote of a majority of the entire membership,

[THEN]

the motion to amend is not in order

IF

a majority of the entire membership is not present when the motion is made.

(RONR, 10th ed., p. 297, ll. 5-22; p. 576, ll. 23-27).

***

Suppose a majority of the entire membership is present at the time the motion to amend is made and stated by the chair (or it isn't but no point of order was made at that time),

but later on, during consideration of the proposed amendment, a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present.

How do you, as the presiding officer, respond to this point of order?

"... a point of order is raised that a majority of the entire membership is not present."

kg: "Not well taken."

The pending motion is an AMENDMENT. -- You don't need a "majority of the membership" to do amendments.

Amendments will always be in order.

So the Point of Order is NOT timely.

The Point of Order is referring to something NOT immediately pending.

Demonstration:

If the radical AMENDMENT is DEFEATED, then all is well.

It wasn't "out of order" to DEFEAT the amendment, since the Point of Order was based on the issue of "adoptability", not on the issue of "amendability."

Thus, the assembly CAN decide the immediately-pending question, despite the fact that the underlying MM is NOT adoptable.

It would be strange indeed if the Point of Order was raised at that moment, when the pending AMENDMENT is easily adoptable AND easily defeatable, no matter how low below "majority of the membership" had dropped -- short of losing one's QUORUM, of course.

***

Also:

Assume the radical amendment passes.

You are free to apply nearly 80 motions to the MM, even if the MM is not directly adoptable at that moment.

All these subsidiary motions would be in order:

1. Post. Indef.

2. Amend

3. Commit

4. Post. Def.

5. Limit Debate

6. (possible exception: PQ might not be in order, due to an RONR rule)

7. Table

It would be ludicrous to suggest that (for example) a motion TO REFER TO COMMITTEE, while immediately pending, could be legitimately interrupted with a Point of Order based on the motion being "out of order" due solely to the fact that "a majority of the membership" is not present. -- Nothing is stopping the assembly from referring X to a committee. Indeed, it might be the most prudent motion possible, if "MEM" is NOT present.

***

Also:

Analogy:

If you lose QUORUM doing any given MM, then the MM does not suddenly become "out of order".

For example, the assembly can FIX THE TIME TO WHICH TO ADJOURN, and thus push the MM, indirectly, to the adjourned meeting.

All without a quorum; all without a "MEM".

Therefore, similarly,

if you LOSE ENOUGH ATTENDEES TO ADOPT THE UNDERLYING MM,

then the MM does not suddenly become "out of order".

The MM remains PENDING (either immediately-pending or nested-pending); and never jumps its status to being "out of order".

***

Also:

The MM was in order at the time it was MOVED. -- That is the given scenario.

A motion ITSELF does not suddenly BECOME "out of order" due to the quorum being lost. -- (We established this point above.)

The MM is still "in order", and no "attendance variable" will change the Standard Descriptive Characteristic (SDC) of that motion.

The SDC (of the motion itself, or of the immediately pending motion) will tell us if a given motion is order AT THE TIME THE MOTION IS MOVED.

No SDC of any motion in RONR says, "If you lose quorum, or if enough voters leave to adopt the motion, the motion ITSELF is 'out of order'."

So, "out of order"-ness is not an attribute to apply here.

***

Now, with that question answered, you are free to bring up the issue of whether the 'Previous Question' can be moved, since my above arguments apply to anything ADOPTABLE, and since RONR does have a rule about UN-ADOPTABLE motions being entertained.

That is a separate issue.

Can you compel Previous Question, even if you are free to compel any subsidiary motion?

That issue is not necessarily an overlap of the original poster's scenario.

***

[Rob Elsman]

Amendments will always be in order.

Clearly, making a subsidiary motion to Amend that, if adopted, would make the main motion, as amended, unadoptable is not in order. Dan was exceedingly careful in crafting his question very narrowly.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Clearly, making a subsidiary motion to Amend that, if adopted, would make the main motion, as amended, unadoptable is not in order. Dan was exceedingly careful in crafting his question very narrowly.

Why?

• The amendment is adoptable, without "MEM".

• The amendment is defeatable, without "MEM".

If enough people walk through the door to satisfy the new amendment requirement, then all is well.

Just because a MM is not adoptable at 8:35 p.m., that does not imply that the motion will be out of order due to adoption of the radical amendment at 8:40 p.m.

Indeed, if during the amendment's debate, enough members do walk in the door, then the Point of Order will be no longer applicable (i.e., the Point of Order being based on false data or out of date data or inaccurate data).

The assembly is free to postpone the MM.

The assembly is free to refer the MM.

No rule will have been violated -- yet.

Indeed, the amendment, WHILE PENDING, might be itself amended, and maybe amended into a form not intended by the maker of the motion. (i.e., into a non-MEM form).

You know, RONR does allow the assembly to amend a MM adversely, so as to make it unpalatable to the voters.

Thus, this radical amendment might accomplish this same legitimate end.

Same principle -- a MM is moved, and is not adoptable in its original wording, given its lack of precision, or given its ambiguity. The assembly is nonetheless free to AMEND that bad MM into an adoptable form, adding/subtracting language to make it feasible.

Same here.

The radical amendment is amendable.

The radical amendment might not be so radical after an amendment or two.

Bottom line:

The assembly is NOT YET confronted with a truly UNADOPTABLE motion.

(And, maybe, due to amendments to the amendments, IT NEVER WILL BE SO CONFRONTED.)

Granted, if the assembly is confronted with an unadoptable MM, then a Point of Order will be in order.

But that is in the future; and maybe that particular "future" will never arrive.

***

So, there are countless "in order" things to do with the amendment, even if its adoption is problematic early in the meeting.