Amendment after debate limit is reached

[Guest dwalcerz]

At the start of the meeting, we adopted an order to limit debate on the motion to adopt a budget to 45 minutes, and that after 45 minutes debate could be extended in 15-minute increments by a majority vote. This order passed by a 2/3 majority. After 45 minutes had elapsed, a member moved to extend debate, but the motion to extend debate was defeated. The same member then rose to offer an amendment to the main motion. The chair said that amendments were out of order because the limit on debate had been reached. The parliamentarian (me) agreed. The member who wanted to propose the amendment said that amendments are in order as long as the motion is pending, and it is pending until the vote is taken. I countered that amendments are part of the debate, and once debate is closed they are not in order and we move to a vote. I have searched RONR, and I see that secondary motions "are always applied to another motion while it is pending...." (pp72 line 1) and that "An order limiting debate appplies not only to the motion(s) on which the limitation is ordered, but also to any debatable subsidiary motions...." which means it would be impossible to debate the amendment. Is my understanding correct? Is there a clear statement in RONR that amendments are only in order during debate?

[David A Foulkes]

At the start of the meeting, we adopted an order to limit debate on the motion to adopt a budget to 45 minutes...

So, was the motion to limit debate adopted before the budget motion was made, or after?

Moving on...

After a look at page 187, lines 20-32, the question arises on the wording of the motion adopted to limit debate. If the motion did not specify when the vote shall be taken, then amendments would be in order although undebatable (l. 29-31), unless there had been some change in the limit (l. 26-27).

If the motion did include some language that would specify when the vote shall be taken (certain hour or length of time of debate), and that time/hour has passed, no amendments would be in order (l 20-25).