Secondary Amendment

[Shmuel Gerber]

If anyone really wants to struggle with this, look closely at the example given on pages 151-54. Look carefully at the motion on page 152, lines 6-9. This motion is offered in the form of a motion to strike out and insert words, but I submit that it amounts to a motion to substitute in that it proposes to strike out virtually the entire main motion and substitute something entirely different in its place. It proposes that the Federation conduct a campaign to raise funds rather than construct and equip a new service wing. After its adoption, virtually nothing remains of the original main motion, and the chair announces that it has become the pending resolution (p. 152, ll. 23-26). He then asks if there are any further amendments to this pending resolution (p. 152, ll.33-34). This seems rather clearly to indicate that even although the assembly has agreed to strike out the original motion and substitute a new one in its place, the new one is as fully open to amendment as if it had, in fact, been the original motion.

You haven't yet convinced me that you were wrong (which is generally a pretty tough thing to do).

I agree with the points that David Foulkes has made in relation to the rules stated in the book and the example on pages 151-152. And, in that example, the proponents of the resolution are in favor of immediately embarking on the project of constructing and equipping a new service wing, either by taking out a mortgage or by raising new funds; as David points out, the resolution can be converted from one purpose to the other by means of striking out and inserting words. The proponents of the substitute, on the other hand, are in favor of studying the issue carefully before committing to any project.

In general, it makes sense to permit a pending resolution to be modified (by means of amending its words) while a substitute for it is pending, on the assumption that if it is made into a more acceptable form, the assembly will decide to retain it.

It makes less sense to permit a pending resolution to be struck out and replaced with something else altogether while a substitute for it is pending, because if the question on the primary substitute is voted down, the assembly will then be retaining neither the original resolution nor the primary substitute.

[Dan Honemann]

You haven't yet convinced me that you were wrong (which is generally a pretty tough thing to do).

I agree with the points that David Foulkes has made in relation to the rules stated in the book and the example on pages 151-152. And, in that example, the proponents of the resolution are in favor of immediately embarking on the project of constructing and equipping a new service wing, either by taking out a mortgage or by raising new funds; as David points out, the resolution can be converted from one purpose to the other by means of striking out and inserting words. The proponents of the substitute, on the other hand, are in favor of studying the issue carefully before committing to any project.

In general, it makes sense to permit a pending resolution to be modified (by means of amending its words) while a substitute for it is pending, on the assumption that if it is made into a more acceptable form, the assembly will decide to retain it.

It makes less sense to permit a pending resolution to be struck out and replaced with something else altogether while a substitute for it is pending, because if the question on the primary substitute is voted down, the assembly will then be retaining neither the original resolution nor the primary substitute.

When the proffered secondary amendment is one to strike out all words after the words "That the Parish Federation undertake", the difference between it and a motion to substitute may seem to be purely one of form, but I suppose what you are telling me is that form is what we're all about.

In any event, thank you for helping me to retain my faith in my own infallibility. I certainly wouldn't want to lose it at this late date.

[Rob Elsman]

When the proffered secondary amendment is one to strike out all words after the words "That the Parish Federation undertake", the difference between it and a motion to substitute may seem to be purely one of form, but I suppose what you are telling me is that form is what we're all about.

In any event, thank you for helping me to retain my faith in my own infallibility. I certainly wouldn't want to lose it at this late date.

While all the talk seems to focus on form, I would submit that the real crux of the matter has more to do with germaneness, especially what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 130, ll. 1-4. What is said there seems to indicate that the secondary amendment must relate to what the primary amendment proposes; in other words, a secondary amendment must have a direct bearing on what the primary amendment proposes and not exceed it. If this rule is observed carefully, I think many or all of the concerns will vanish, since a secondary amendment that proposes something unrelated to what the primary amendment proposes would be out of order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

While all the talk seems to focus on form, I would submit that the real crux of the matter has more to do with germaneness, especially what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 130, ll. 1-4. What is said there seems to indicate that the secondary amendment must relate to what the primary amendment proposes; in other words, a secondary amendment must have a direct bearing on what the primary amendment proposes and not exceed it. If this rule is observed carefully, I think many or all of the concerns will vanish, since a secondary amendment that proposes something unrelated to what the primary amendment proposes would be out of order.

Rob, I think I might agree with you for the most part, but what you've said is much too vague to say so for sure.

[David A Foulkes]

While all the talk seems to focus on form, I would submit that the real crux of the matter has more to do with germaneness, especially what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 130, ll. 1-4.

My take on that citation is that the secondary amendment (as moved against the primary) must be germane to the primary amendment in what the primary proposes itself, not as to what the primary proposes to change in the main motion. If the primary amendment is offered as any of the three basic forms (not as a substitute), the secondary must be of those three forms and must be applied against the primary directly. A substitute being a primary amendment only can not be offered as a secondary amendment.

In the example given, had the amendments been offered thus, then the secondary would be germane :

Main : A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary : To strike “and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme” and insert “in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge.”

Secondary : To strike “eminent singer” and insert “art critic”

It would have been out of order for the secondary amendment to intend to strike out anything in the first five words of the main motion by virtue of your citation.

However, if the primary had been offered as a subtitute, with "A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge", the main motion (in this case anyway) is entirely open to secondary amendment of strike-and-insert form, without the necessary restriction of germaneness to the primary amendment. (p. 147 ll. 8-18) And this seems to be what the example dialogue on pp. 151-152 support. The secondary amendment can not substitute against the main motion itself, but by carefully crafting it as a strike-and-replace, the main motion can be amended by the secondary amendment prior to consideration of the primary amendment.

[Rob Elsman]

My take on that citation is that the secondary amendment (as moved against the primary) must be germane to the primary amendment in what the primary proposes itself, not as to what the primary proposes to change in the main motion. If the primary amendment is offered as any of the three basic forms (not as a substitute), the secondary must be of those three forms and must be applied against the primary directly. A substitute being a primary amendment only can not be offered as a secondary amendment.

In the example given, had the amendments been offered thus, then the secondary would be germane :

Main : A cultural night be organized and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme.

Primary : To strike “and we call Mr. SPB to sing at the programme” and insert “in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge.”

Secondary : To strike “eminent singer” and insert “art critic”

It would have been out of order for the secondary amendment to intend to strike out anything in the first five words of the main motion by virtue of your citation.

However, if the primary had been offered as a subtitute, with "A cultural night be organized in which a singing competition be held for the public and an eminent singer be called as a judge", the main motion (in this case anyway) is entirely open to secondary amendment of strike-and-insert form, without the necessary restriction of germaneness to the primary amendment. (p. 147 ll. 8-18) And this seems to be what the example dialogue on pp. 151-152 support. The secondary amendment can not substitute against the main motion itself, but by carefully crafting it as a strike-and-replace, the main motion can be amended by the secondary amendment prior to consideration of the primary amendment.

I don't follow all that, but if it is the suggestion that a secondary amendment in the form of a substitute cannot be applied to multiple paragraphs or larger units of text proposed to be struck out by the pending, primary amendment in the form of a substitute (provided the secondary amendment is germane), then I disagree.

Further, if it is your suggestion that a secondary amendment can be used as the parliamentary vehicle to load the pending main motion with matter that has no bearing on what the pending, primary amendment in the form of a substitute proposes, then I disagree.

[Dan Honemann]

While all the talk seems to focus on form, I would submit that the real crux of the matter has more to do with germaneness, especially what is said in RONR (10th ed.), p. 130, ll. 1-4. What is said there seems to indicate that the secondary amendment must relate to what the primary amendment proposes; in other words, a secondary amendment must have a direct bearing on what the primary amendment proposes and not exceed it. If this rule is observed carefully, I think many or all of the concerns will vanish, since a secondary amendment that proposes something unrelated to what the primary amendment proposes would be out of order.

If a proposed amendment is not germane, then, of course, it is not in order, but this discussion assumes that the proposed amendment is germane, and for purposes of specificity we are referring to the example on pages 151-54.

In that example, suppose that member X moves to amend the pending resolution by substituting for it the following "Resolved, That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House."

Is this proposed amendment in order?

[Gary Novosielski]

If a proposed amendment is not germane, then, of course, it is not in order, but this discussion assumes that the proposed amendment is germane, and for purposes of specificity we are referring to the example on pages 151-54.

In that example, suppose that member X moves to amend the pending resolution by substituting for it the following "Resolved, That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House."

Is this proposed amendment in order?

In the example, the chair has already declined to entertain member I's secondary amendment to A's substitute, seeking first to consider amendments to the underlying resolution. In that case X's substitute is not in order, because, if I understand the rule (p. 147, l. 11 ff.), such secondary amendments to the material proposed to be struck must be in one of the three basic (word-oriented) forms, and may not be a substitute.

If, instead, X had offered his substitute as a secondary amendment to substitute for A's substitute, it would be in order, but presumably would not yet be entertained by the chair until he was satisfied that there were no more secondary amendments to the material proposed to be struck.

[Rob Elsman]

If a proposed amendment is not germane, then, of course, it is not in order, but this discussion assumes that the proposed amendment is germane, and for purposes of specificity we are referring to the example on pages 151-54.

In that example, suppose that member X moves to amend the pending resolution by substituting for it the following "Resolved, That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House."

Is this proposed amendment in order?

I'm sorry to reply late--between tax week and Holy Week, I've been a little occupied.

I see nothing about the cited example or your member X's motion that looks like it's not germane.

[Rob Elsman]

In the example, the chair has already declined to entertain member I's secondary amendment to A's substitute, seeking first to consider amendments to the underlying resolution. In that case X's substitute is not in order, because, if I understand the rule (p. 147, l. 11 ff.), such secondary amendments to the material proposed to be struck must be in one of the three basic (word-oriented) forms, and may not be a substitute.

If, instead, X had offered his substitute as a secondary amendment to substitute for A's substitute, it would be in order, but presumably would not yet be entertained by the chair until he was satisfied that there were no more secondary amendments to the material proposed to be struck.

I agree with your first paragraph, since the matter proposed in the primary amendment to be struck out is one paragraph. I reserve the right to give a different answer in the case where the matter proposed in the primary amendment to be struck out consists of multiple paragraphs or larger units of text.

[Dan Honemann]

I see nothing about the cited example or your member X's motion that looks like it's not germane.

I certainly hope not.

In any event, as I said, "this discussion assumes that the proposed amendment is germane ..."

[Gary Novosielski]

I reserve the right to give a different answer in the case where the matter proposed in the primary amendment to be struck out consists of multiple paragraphs or larger units of text.

Your reservation is noted. <pause>

Okay. Suppose it did, what would your answer be, and why would it be any different?

[hmtcastle]

I'm sorry to reply late--between tax week and Holy Week, I've been a little occupied.

In my current line of work, tax week is holy week.

[Rob Elsman]

Your reservation is noted. <pause>

Okay. Suppose it did, what would your answer be, and why would it be any different?

RONR (10th ed.), p. 129, ll. 23-25, indicates that amendments in the forms relating to paragraphs can be applied to paragraphs or larger units of text (sections, articles, etc.). Therefore, it is my opinion that a secondary amendment in the form of a substitute can be applied to the text proposed to be struck out by a primary amendment in the form of a substitute when the matter proposed by the primary amendment to be struck out consists of multiple contiguous paragraphs or larger units of text. Had the example resolution on p. 151 consisted of multiple paragraphs, a primary amendment in the form of a substitute proposing to replace the entire text of the resolution with an entirely new version would have been in order (assuming germaneness), and secondary amendments in forms relating to paragraphs would have been in order to modify the text (the whole resolution, in this case) which the primary amendment proposed to strike out (assuming germaneness).

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR (10th ed.), p. 129, ll. 23-25, indicates that amendments in the forms relating to paragraphs can be applied to paragraphs or larger units of text (sections, articles, etc.).

As I understand it, those lines only serve to classify the amendments into their different types according to the form of the amendment. Line 26 tells us that the subsections containing the actual rules on their use come later. (p. 133 ff.) Specifically, the rules for 3(b ), To Substitute, begin on page 146, line 15.

In that subsection (p. 147, l. 8-13), we see that "in contrast" to the basic word-based form, the motion to substitute opens the material proposed to be struck to amendment by the three basic forms, "since this is the procedure" used in handling types 1(b ) and 2(b )--inserting and striking by paragraph.

Looking back at 2(b ), To Strike out a Paragraph, (p. 140, l. 33 et seq.) we find that rule, that the material proposed to be struck "is opened to improvement by secondary amendments in any of three forms related to words ... before the vote is taken on the primary amendment." (p. 141, l. 1-6) [Emphasis in the original]

I haven't found a distinction between the application of the rules to a single paragraph or multiple paragraphs, and in fact the rules seem to apply uniformly to contiguous units of text as small as a single sentence or as large as the entire resolution.

[Rob Elsman]

As I understand it, those lines only serve to classify the amendments into their different types according to the form of the amendment. Line 26 tells us that the subsections containing the actual rules on their use come later. (p. 133 ff.) Specifically, the rules for 3(b ), To Substitute, begin on page 146, line 15.

In that subsection (p. 147, l. 8-13), we see that "in contrast" to the basic word-based form, the motion to substitute opens the material proposed to be struck to amendment by the three basic forms, "since this is the procedure" used in handling types 1(b ) and 2(b )--inserting and striking by paragraph.

Looking back at 2(b ), To Strike out a Paragraph, (p. 140, l. 33 et seq.) we find that rule, that the material proposed to be struck "is opened to improvement by secondary amendments in any of three forms related to words ... before the vote is taken on the primary amendment." (p. 141, l. 1-6) [Emphasis in the original]

I haven't found a distinction between the application of the rules to a single paragraph or multiple paragraphs, and in fact the rules seem to apply uniformly to contiguous units of text as small as a single sentence or as large as the entire resolution.

I guess I fell out of the other side of the bed this morning, because I'm really feeling uncomfortable about your position as a whole. I'm really squirming. On p. 146, ll. 20-30, we read that a substitute can be offered for a main motion or resolution of only one sentence or paragraph. That seems pretty clear. I think it also conforms to my experience. I guess I'm going to back away from what you are claiming. So, upon reflection, I guess I think Mr. Honemann's substitute was in order.

[Gary Novosielski]

I guess I fell out of the other side of the bed this morning, because I'm really feeling uncomfortable about your position as a whole. I'm really squirming. On p. 146, ll. 20-30, we read that a substitute can be offered for a main motion or resolution of only one sentence or paragraph. That seems pretty clear. I think it also conforms to my experience. I guess I'm going to back away from what you are claiming. So, upon reflection, I guess I think Mr. Honemann's substitute was in order.

I don't understand the nature of the squirming. I'm not even sure what my "position as a whole" is.

I agree that a substitute can be offered on a motion of a single sentence or paragraph. That's not in dispute. It conforms to my experience as well.

What I'm saying only applies to the amendment of the original material, at a time when a substitute is already pending.

Apparently, when a substitute is offered, and a secondary amendment is then moved, not to the substitute itself, but rather to the material proposed to be struck by the substitute, that secondary amendment cannot be in the nature of a substitute, but must be one of the three basic forms concerning words. That's what the rules appear to me to say.

And by that criterion, Dan's hypothetical amendment (well, member X's actually) to the underlying resolution would appear not to be in order, since it was not word-oriented but rather paragraph oriented (a substitute) itself, unlike the original example in the Book, which was word-oriented and was in order.

Dan correctly points out that it is possible to achieve the same thing with two motions, but apparently if that's what it takes, that's what it takes..

I'm not saying there's a stunningly good reason for the rule, at least I don't see one immediately, but it appears to be the rule. And I've made the mistake before of thinking there was no particularly good reason for a rule and then discovering later that it was in fact sheer genius. So forget I just said that.