Improper amendment

[gadaffi]

Folks,

We were discussing a motion at a university in the midwest which stated the following in its entirety:

"RECOMMENDATION ON OAKLAND COUNTRY WAY

The faculty and professional staff recommend that Midwest University sever its relationship with Oakland Country Way. This recommendation is based upon the Way's financial support of organizations that discriminate (counter to University policy) in providing community services, and/or that support social values objectionable to significant numbers of faculty and staff."

Someone suggested the following "amendment" in the form of a strike and substitute with the entire contents of the proposal being struck out and replaced with the sentences below.

"The faculty and professional staff recommend that Midwest University allow the Oakland Country Way one year to develop a post-campaign allocation process whereby donors can be assured that their contributions made via payroll deduction will not go to any organization which they explicitly wish to exclude from receiving their contributions.

If Oakland Country Way should fail to develop such a process within one year, then the faculty and professional staff recommend that Midwest University suspend its relationship with the Oakland Country Way until such time as such a policy is instituted."

I believe that this was an improper amendment since it violated to me several of the tenets regarding amendments in RRs. It clearly introduces an independent question; in fact several new questions which are the following:

1. This idea of telling the OCW how to allocate their monies.

2. After a year, Midwest Univ will revisit the issue

I find that it further violates the following requirement of the RRs, i.e., the amendment should not be frivolous or absurd. The idea that the OCW would be able to restrict financial resources to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is absurd since they can simply allocate that resource by a mere paper transfer., i.e., if I specify money not to go to the BSA but some other place, they can simply take money from that agency and give it to the BSA. Therefore, the BSA would not suffer any financial penalty as a result of this proposal. Further, there is no reason given for MU to sanction the OCW in this amended proposal. This was in the first one, i.e., the second sentence.

Just looking for some clarification as to if this was indeed an improper amendment. Clearly if the original proposal had failed to pass there would be no justification to then introduce this one and this, I believe, was the reason for the amendment.

Thanks

[Josh Martin]

Just looking for some clarification as to if this was indeed an improper amendment. Clearly if the original proposal had failed to pass there would be no justification to then introduce this one and this, I believe, was the reason for the amendment.

I think it's a judgment call whether the amendment was germane. I can see arguments for both sides on that issue. Both the original motion and the amendment involve what to do about the relationship between the university and Oakland Country Way. I do not agree that the amendment was frivolous or absurd. The fact that the "post-campaign allocation process" called for in the amendment might be difficult (or even impossible) to properly enforce doesn't make the amendment absurd. It might make the amendment a bad idea, but that's something to discuss in debate. The amendment still presents a rational proposition which may be adopted or rejected by the assembly.

Lastly, you note that the amendment doesn't give a reason for the sanction, but nothing in RONR requires that. You note that the original proposal did include a rationale, but there's nothing wrong with striking that. In short, I think the only real issue with the amendment is whether it was germane, which I think is not quite as clear-cut as you believe.

What's the status of the original motion and the amendment now? What happened after the amendment was moved?

[Gary Novosielski]

Folks,

We were discussing a motion at a university in the midwest which stated the following in its entirety:

"RECOMMENDATION ON OAKLAND COUNTRY WAY

The faculty and professional staff recommend that Midwest University sever its relationship with Oakland Country Way. This recommendation is based upon the Way's financial support of organizations that discriminate (counter to University policy) in providing community services, and/or that support social values objectionable to significant numbers of faculty and staff."

Someone suggested the following "amendment" in the form of a strike and substitute with the entire contents of the proposal being struck out and replaced with the sentences below.

"The faculty and professional staff recommend that Midwest University allow the Oakland Country Way one year to develop a post-campaign allocation process whereby donors can be assured that their contributions made via payroll deduction will not go to any organization which they explicitly wish to exclude from receiving their contributions.

If Oakland Country Way should fail to develop such a process within one year, then the faculty and professional staff recommend that Midwest University suspend its relationship with the Oakland Country Way until such time as such a policy is instituted."

I believe that this was an improper amendment since it violated to me several of the tenets regarding amendments in RRs. It clearly introduces an independent question; in fact several new questions which are the following:

1. This idea of telling the OCW how to allocate their monies.

2. After a year, Midwest Univ will revisit the issue

I find that it further violates the following requirement of the RRs, i.e., the amendment should not be frivolous or absurd. The idea that the OCW would be able to restrict financial resources to the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) is absurd since they can simply allocate that resource by a mere paper transfer., i.e., if I specify money not to go to the BSA but some other place, they can simply take money from that agency and give it to the BSA. Therefore, the BSA would not suffer any financial penalty as a result of this proposal. Further, there is no reason given for MU to sanction the OCW in this amended proposal. This was in the first one, i.e., the second sentence.

Just looking for some clarification as to if this was indeed an improper amendment. Clearly if the original proposal had failed to pass there would be no justification to then introduce this one and this, I believe, was the reason for the amendment.

Thanks

I'd tend to agree with you. Since money does not have tracers in it, there simply isn't a procedure that would ensure that no money from an individual's contribution would end up being sent to a particular organization which OCW supports. If it were your organization making the donations directly, and if every employee specifically designated their deductions to specific organizations, something like this could be done, but if all the donations are funneled through the OCW, it could allocate the funds any way it wanted, and say to anyone who objected, "Oh, your money didn't go there, someone else's did."

In general, it would not be out of order (according to RONR) to pass a motion making your support for another organization contingent upon their actions and policies, even if you have no direct control over them, nor would it be improper to specify a waiting period, and recommended action if the period passes without an acceptable result.

But the only way this result could be achieved is if OCW changed its policy so that it did not support BSA at all, or if every contributing organization was forced to completely allocate its contributions.

I'm not certain that this meets the test for frivolous or dilatory amendments, but perhaps others will have an opinion; stay tuned.

You could certainly try to raise a point of order that the motion proposes an impossible action, and that granting an additional year is dilatory given the vanishingly small likelihood that OCW would capitulate in that time period.

However the chair rules, you could be prepared to Appeal the decision (have someone ready to second the appeal) and make your case to the membership.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether opposing the substitute on parliamentary grounds is a better use of your energy and resources than opposing it directly on its merits alone.

[Josh Martin]

I'm not certain that this meets the test for frivolous or dilatory amendments, but perhaps others will have an opinion; stay tuned.

You could certainly try to raise a point of order that the motion proposes an impossible action, and that granting an additional year is dilatory given the vanishingly small likelihood that OCW would capitulate in that time period.

The motion is clearly not dilatory, as it seems the posters are truly seeking its adoption and not simply seeking to obstruct the conduct of business. The motion also does not propose "an impossible action." It is entirely possible for OCW to "develop a post-campaign allocation process whereby donors can be assured that their contributions made via payroll deduction will not go to any organization which they explicitly wish to exclude from receiving their contributions." The fact that such a process might not work very well is a question of the merits of the motion, not whether it is in order.

From the facts provided, the only legitimate grounds I see for a Point of Order is to question whether the amendment is germane to the original motion, and I think that's a judgment call.

However the chair rules, you could be prepared to Appeal the decision (have someone ready to second the appeal) and make your case to the membership.

You'll have to decide for yourself whether opposing the substitute on parliamentary grounds is a better use of your energy and resources than opposing it directly on its merits alone.

The poster was never clear on what the current status of the amendment is, so this may no longer be an option.

[gadaffi]

The motion is clearly not dilatory, as it seems the posters are truly seeking its adoption and not simply seeking to obstruct the conduct of business. The motion also does not propose "an impossible action." It is entirely possible for OCW to "develop a post-campaign allocation process whereby donors can be assured that their contributions made via payroll deduction will not go to any organization which they explicitly wish to exclude from receiving their contributions." The fact that such a process might not work very well is a question of the merits of the motion, not whether it is in order.

From the facts provided, the only legitimate grounds I see for a Point of Order is to question whether the amendment is germane to the original motion, and I think that's a judgment call.

The poster was never clear on what the current status of the amendment is, so this may no longer be an option.

First, thanks very much for the insightful commentary. When I attended the meeting at which the original proposal was submitted, it was with the idea to vote against the motion. As I mentioned, the people proposing this realized that it would fail and sought to produce a less odious proposal. At that time and just going on what I think a dictionary would define amend as, it was obvious to me that this was not an amended proposal but a completely different one. You cannot amend a proposal by removing all the contents and replacing it with completely different language. As I mentioned this was just based on what I perceived amend to mean and this has nothing to do with RRules. In any case, if a proposal is amended seriously, it requires another 10 days before it can be voted upon. Oakland Country Way decided to allow people the choice to state where the money would go so the proposal was never brought up again.

Thanks again and I now understand some more on this issue. Very useful site.

[Gary Novosielski]

You cannot amend a proposal by removing all the contents and replacing it with completely different language.

Oh, but you can. It's called amendment by "substitution".

It is listed in the section on the motion to Amend, and it is called a motion to substitute. Anything from a single paragraph to the entire main motion can be done in this way.

Amendments in the nature of a substitute are relatively common, and useful even when the original motion is not intended to change a lot, but is meant to change a little bit in a lot of different places. But a substitute can be a full rewrite with not a single syllable the same.

[hmtcastle]

But a substitute can be a full rewrite with not a single syllable the same.

Oh, the germanity!