Motions

[Guest Doug Robertson]

If one makes a motion ; i.e. to send one person to a conference, and that motion is seconded, debated, and voted on in the affirmative, wouldn't one have to amend said motion to send additional people to the same conference?

[jstackpo]

You could just pass additional main motions naming other attendees.

Such motions wouldn't "amend" the first one in any way (unless, e.g., the additional attendee's expenses reduced the allocation for the first guy) nor would the additional motions rescind the first one, nor contradict it.

[Larry Cisar]

You could just pass additional main motions naming other attendees.

Such motions wouldn't "amend" the first one in any way (unless, e.g., the additional attendee's expenses reduced the allocation for the first guy) nor would the additional motions rescind the first one, nor contradict it.

But do be careful as to how the first motion is worded. If the first said that John Doe is the only representative of XYG and you want to send others as representatives of XYG, you would need to amend the first motion.

[George Mervosh]

But do be careful as to how the first motion is worded. If the first said that John Doe is the only representative of XYG and you want to send others as representatives of XYG, you would need to amend the first motion.

I think it should be done, period. RONR, p. 293ff (for Doug's info)

[David A Foulkes]

I think it should be done, period. RONR, p. 293ff (for Doug's info)

It might be the safest way to avoid any subsequent issues or questions. A recent similar posting covered this, and may raise more questions than provide answers, but it's almost the same question and perhaps worthy of a review. The one hiccup I can see potentially is that John Doe may get amended out of going at all! Not likely, perhaps, but possible. Just a thought....

[Guest Doug Robertson]

This is the problem we are encountering. I read it as having to amend the motion (pg 293).

I believe that puts to bed that motion and you cannot make a new motion to send more people to a conference that has already been voted on.

There seems to be no clear agreement on what is right.

[Gary Novosielski]

If one makes a motion ; i.e. to send one person to a conference, and that motion is seconded, debated, and voted on in the affirmative, wouldn't one have to amend said motion to send additional people to the same conference?

Barring some unusual dependency conditions, it doesn't sound like there's any reason sending someone else couldn't be moved as an original main motion. If there's some reason the two would necessarily be intertwined, so that the original motion could be affected by this one, you'd have to make that case.

[Rob Elsman]

If one makes a motion ; i.e. to send one person to a conference, and that motion is seconded, debated, and voted on in the affirmative, wouldn't one have to amend said motion to send additional people to the same conference?

Yes. An adopted main motion to send Adam to the conference implies that no one else is being sent. A second main motion thereafter to send Bob, also, really proposes a change to what was previously decided. The second motion should be in the form of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (10th ed.), §35, pp. 293ff.

[Guest Doug Robertson]

Barring some unusual dependency conditions, it doesn't sound like there's any reason sending someone else couldn't be moved as an original main motion. If there's some reason the two would necessarily be intertwined, so that the original motion could be affected by this one, you'd have to make that case.

Yes. An adopted main motion to send Adam to the conference implies that no one else is being sent. A second main motion thereafter to send Bob, also, really proposes a change to what was previously decided. The second motion should be in the form of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (10th ed.), §35, pp. 293ff.

This is what I am talking about. Two totally different opinions. Which is it?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

If one makes a motion ; i.e. to send one person to a conference, and that motion is seconded, debated, and voted on in the affirmative,

wouldn't one have to amend said motion to send additional people to the same conference?

No.

There is no relationship between the two motions. They do not interplay. They do not interfere with each other.

Example:

MON - adopt a motion, "That Mrs. Peacock be sent to the parliamentary seminar in May."

TUE - adopt a motion, "That Col. Mustard be sent to the parliamentary seminar in May."

WED - adopt a motion, "That Miss Scarlet and Prof. Plum be sent to the parliamentary seminar in May?"

Q. As of Thursday, who is authorized to go to the parliamentary seminar in May?

A. 4 people: Peacock, Mustard, Scarlet, Plum.

Q. Are the motions on TUE and WED out of order because of the motion adopted on MON?

A. No. The motions are unrelated to each other. They may be amended or rescinded separately. They may be budgeted separately. They may have restrictions added (or subtracted), without adding/subtracting the same restrictions with the other people being sent to the same seminar.

Q. If we wish to rescind the motion sending Col. Mustard, must be alter the other two motions?

A. No. There is no interplay between the three motions. They are independent.

[Gary Novosielski]

I would say that the motions are related to each other, as they refer to the same conference, but they do not appear to conflict with each other, which would be what's needed to make the subsequent motion out of order.

A group could vote to buy a toaster for the kitchen, and then later decide to buy a coffee pot for the kitchen. I suppose it would be possible to argue that the first motion had decided the question of the complete equipment list for the kitchen, and the second would be out or order except as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Others would say that's silly.

Ultimately, this is going to be a judgment call based on what the intent of the assembly was in adopting the first motion. Did they intend to set full list of attendees at that time, or did they just want to get some of the reservations in early, for the one(s) who had decided they could make it, presuming they could always approve others if and when more volunteers came forward. [it occurs to me that we passed a motion exactly like that last month at a meeting I chaired, and I know the intent of that one, but I suppose I should disclose an interest not in common with others in the outcome here.]

I don't think it's reasonable to expect a cut-and-dried answer when it's an iffy situation. Now, it's true that the adopters of the original motion could have made it easier on all of us by making the motion clearly state whether it was supposed to be an exhaustive list, or a partial one. [And so should I have, apparently.]

But if they didn't, they didn't.

[Dan Honemann]

This is what I am talking about. Two totally different opinions. Which is it?

As Mr. Novosielski has very nicely explained, the answer to your question depends upon the exact wording of the motion which was adopted, and complete familiarity with all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding its adoption. You have not provided any of this.

[Guest Doug Robertson]

As Mr. Novosielski has very nicely explained, the answer to your question depends upon the exact wording of the motion which was adopted, and complete familiarity with all of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding its adoption. You have not provided any of this.

[Guest Doug Robertson]

Dan,

Here's the whole story. At our February meeting, a motion was made to send the President of our Local to an "educational" conference. The motion was seconded, and after vigerous debate, the motion was voted on in the affirmative. The President was not pleased,(he wanted some of his syncophants to join him in Atlantic City. Since most of those who wanted to go are on the 11-7 shift, the President mentioned to our Staff rep that after consideration, the "membership" had concluded that we need to send more members for "education". The staff rep, thinking this was the will of a great deal of the membership, said to just make another motion to send more people. Members who had voted in the affirmative began getting wind of this end around, went to RONR Pg 293 which we believed would negate this move, They had not posted in advance a notice of re-consideration and would probably not get the required 2/3 vote anyway. At the March meeting, they stacked the meeting with their like-minded kind. The President said he was going ignore RONR on advice of our staff rep. (BTW, the President was the only one to speak to the staff rep). Amotion was made to send three more people to the conference,seconded, and over vehement objections, was passed by the stacked house. Now, I need to know why the second vote has more validity than the first vote. And when does is a motion "put to bed", or are they fluid, and if we stack the room with "our" guys next time we can keep this moton going forever. When does the insanity end?

[hmtcastle]

They had not posted in advance a notice of re-consideration and would probably not get the required 2/3 vote anyway.

RONR has no requirement for a "notice of re-consideration" and, in fact, reconsideration is only possible at the same meeting so the idea of requiring notice is absurd.

Now, I need to know why the second vote has more validity than the first vote.

It doesn't have more validity. But neither does it have less.

And when does is a motion "put to bed", or are they fluid, and if we stack the room with "our" guys next time we can keep this moton going forever. When does the insanity end?

It ends when the conference is over and it's too late to send anyone else. Other than that, nothing is carved in stone.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

At our February meeting, a motion was made to send the President of our Local to an "educational" conference ... the motion was voted on in the affirmative.

OK

... the President mentioned to our Staff rep that after consideration, the "membership" had concluded that we need to send more members for "education".

The staff rep, thinking this was the will of a great deal of the membership, said to just make another motion to send more people.

OK.

No violation yet.

Members who had voted in the affirmative began getting wind of this end around, went to RONR Pg 293 which we believed would negate this move,

(Page 293 is in the middle of "Amend Something Previously Adopted; Rescind".)

Q. What did they find on page 293 which lead them to this conclusion?

They had not posted in advance a notice of re-consideration ...

Oh, geez!

Now your getting all balled up.

... and would probably not get the required 2/3 vote anyway.

At the March meeting, they stacked the meeting with their like-minded kind.

This violates no rule.

Stacking is OK.

Members are members. It makes no difference how they got to the meeting.

The President said he was going ignore RONR on advice of our staff rep.

Huh?

So far, there is nothing in RONR to ignore.

No violation has occurred.

You are not "Amending Something Previously Adopted."

You are not "Rescinding."

So your page 293 reference, so far, is not applicable. (Yet?)

A motion was made to send three more people to the conference, seconded, and over vehement objections, was passed by the stacked house.

No violation of any parliamentary rule has occurred.

You may send one, two, three people out to the same event, without necessarily doing it all at once.

Do one on Monday. Do one on Tuesday Do one on Wednesday.

Any more that you can send 3 people out on a free dinner at Denny's. -- Separately.

Now, I need to know why the second vote has more validity than the first vote.

"More"?

"More validity?"

How about "equal validity"?

And when is a motion "put to bed", or are they fluid, and if we stack the room with "our" guys next time we can keep this motion going forever.

You are free to send an infinite number of people, to an infinite number of events, all on separate days.

No rule in Robert's Rules of Order will stop you.

Any more than if you adopt a motion,

"To buy 2 tickets to a Dodger game, for Mr. and Mrs. President" on Monday;

and "To buy 2 tickets to a Dodger game, for Mr. and Mrs. Vice President" on Tuesday;

and "To buy 12 tickets to a Dodger game for Miss Treasurer and all her little treasures," on Wednesday.

An infinitum.

Ad nauseum.

Even if it is the same Dodger game.

When does the insanity end?

I think it stopped in the mid-1990s.

See Susan Powter.

[Guest Doug Robertson]

Yes. An adopted main motion to send Adam to the conference implies that no one else is being sent. A second main motion thereafter to send Bob, also, really proposes a change to what was previously decided. The second motion should be in the form of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, RONR (10th ed.), §35, pp. 293ff.

This is exactly what I'm saying. A motion was made to send a specific number of people to this particular conference on this particular date. That motion is done. If you want to send more people to this same conference on this same date, why wouldn't you have to amend the motion that has already addressed this issue. Do you only amend motions to remove things from motions, and not when adding things to them? How is that different? It seems to me that if you are you are trying to add "conditions" to a previously passed motion, that you would need to amend the motion that has already dealt with this matter. If this weren't the case, why do you have anything in RONR to deal with an amended motion?

[Josh Martin]

Do you only amend motions to remove things from motions, and not when adding things to them? How is that different? It seems to me that if you are you are trying to add "conditions" to a previously passed motion, that you would need to amend the motion that has already dealt with this matter. If this weren't the case, why do you have anything in RONR to deal with an amended motion?

The rule is that a motion may not be adopted which conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in effect, except by amending the original motion. A motion to send additional people to a conference does not necessarily conflict with the original motion, although I can certainly imagine circumstances in which it would. I think Mr. Novosielski still has it correct that the assembly will have to interpret the intent of the original motion. If you believe that the motion adopted to send the additional people conflicts with the original motion, raise a Point of Order to that effect, and if you disagree with the chair's ruling, Appeal from the decision of the chair.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A motion was made to send a specific number of people to this particular conference on this particular date.

If you want to send more people to this same conference on this same date, why wouldn't you have to amend the motion that has already addressed this issue?

Do you only amend motions to remove things from motions, and not when adding things to them?

How is that different?

It seems to me that if you are you are trying to add "conditions" to a previously passed motion, that you would need to amend the motion that has already dealt with this matter.

If this weren't the case, why do you have anything in RONR to deal with an amended motion?

• If adopted motion #1 interferes with the execution of #2, then you are correct.

• If adopted motion #2 interferes with the execution of #1, then you are correct.

• If adopting a pair of motions #1 and #2 (a.) causes an impossible situation, or (b.) causes an un-executable pair of motions, then you are correct.

But "sending people" out (for pizza; to an educational seminar; to a baseball game; etc.) causes no such dependency. The fact that more people are "being sent" never undoes the first person's ability to be sent.

Analogy #1:

If you pass a motion on Monday, "To repair the piano," are you obligated by rule to amend this motion if, on Tuesday, the organization wishes to repair the leaky faucet?

(No. Even though BOTH motions are dealing with repairs.)

Analogy #2:

If you pass a motion in January, "To make a donation to the Red Cross Relief Fund", are you obligated by rule to amend this motion if, in February, the organization wishes to make a donation to the Think Cure (American Breast Cancer Awareness) Association?

(No. Even though BOTH motions are dealing with donations.)

You would only Amend Something Previously Adopted if the follow up motions are dependent upon the original motion, or if the follow up motions would interfere with the execution of the original motion.

Sending X to event Y can be done every year, every month, every week, since Person X is variable who is not dependent on the next person going to the identical event, and the Event Y is not dependent on the number of X's who shall be attending.

When you cannot obey both motions simultaneously, THEN you will indeed have to amend the prior motion, to make it executable or make it non-contradictory.

"Sending" is something you can do independently.

A motion was made to send a specific number of people to this particular conference on this particular date.

...

At our February meeting, a motion was made to send the President of our Local to an "educational" conference. [passed]

...

the "membership" had concluded that we need to send more members for "education".

...

Q. Sending a second person to this "educational conference" makes impossible the sending of the president to this "educational conference, in what way?

Q. If my club sends me to Disneyland for earning a gold star in chocolate bar sales (i.e., annual fund raising),

then how is my trip to Disneyland undone, impossible, or illogical,

if my club were to send another member to Disneyland for his stellar sales accomplishment?

Why can't my club send us all to Disneyland? Why must it all be done in the same meeting? What must be un-done (what must be amended, and cannot be executed) to allow subsequent members to be "sent"?

Where is the interference?

[Rob Elsman]

This is exactly what I'm saying. A motion was made to send a specific number of people to this particular conference on this particular date. That motion is done. If you want to send more people to this same conference on this same date, why wouldn't you have to amend the motion that has already addressed this issue. Do you only amend motions to remove things from motions, and not when adding things to them? How is that different? It seems to me that if you are you are trying to add "conditions" to a previously passed motion, that you would need to amend the motion that has already dealt with this matter. If this weren't the case, why do you have anything in RONR to deal with an amended motion?

Having read the additional information you provided, I confirm my earlier opinion that the proper form for the second motion is Amend Something Previously Adopted. The underlying principle is briefly discussed in RONR (10th ed.), p. xlvii.