Special Meeting Motion Amendment?

[Guest Eric]

Hi Everyone - I'm new to this forum and have no particular expertise in RR - but I need some guidance on a situation. I will probably be long-winded in my post so I apologize in advance for any protocol violations.

I am the Chairman of the Executive Committee at my church (president, moderator etc). In May at our Annual Meeting it was decided that we would table a motion that some members had a problem with (I realize now 'lay on the table' was probably not the right approach) and that we would have study and discussion time and then call a Special Meeting to re take-up the motion.

I sent out a call for the Special Meeting and it includes only one agenda item as follows:

The purpose of this meeting is:

1. To reconsider the motion that was tabled at the Annual Meeting in May, 2011 regarding the Permanent Pastor Search Committee.

The motion from the May meeting is the same one that I will make at the Special Meeting - the intervening study and discussion resulted in a reaffirmation of the original motion. Our bylaws provide for Special Meetings as follows:

© Special meetings of the Church for purposes of transacting business may be called by the Pastor, the Board of Deacons, the Executive Committee, or on written request of five Members of the Church. Each of these meetings shall be called by the Clerk. The nature of the business to be transacted shall be stated in the call, and the action of the meeting shall be limited to the stated purpose.

Here is my dilemma/question. Apparently two people who still disagree with the original motion are planning to either make new motions at the Special Meeting OR attempt to Amend my original motion. Some references that I read seem to indicate that NO new motions (not included in the call), even related to the original may be made at a special meeting. So if a new motion is made I feel secure that I simply must not allow it. BUT...I'm not clear on making amendments to a motion at a special meeting.

Again, I apologize for the long post but any guidance, advice, support I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Eric

[tctheatc]

Only business mentioned in the call of a special meeting can be conducted at that meeting. Seems to me that how your call is worded should be instrumental in determining what exactly the business of that meeting is. But it certainly seems amendments germane to the original motion would qualify, based on what you've described.

[Chris Harrison]

I am not sure that you can lock the assembly into considering a specific motion unless the specific language of the motion was included in the call of the Special Meeting so new motions regarding the topic in the call or amendments to the motion you plan to introduce might be in order. I would suggest you read RONR pp. 89-90. Then using what you read on those pages you can decide whether they are out of order. If you do rule the motions out of order that ruling could be Appealed (RONR pp. 247-252). If you let the motions proceed a member could raise a Point of Order (RONR pp. 240-247) that they should be out of order and you would rule on the Point and that ruling could be Appealed. So ultimately the decision is the assembly's if a member disagrees with your decision.

[Tim Wynn]

Amendments are okay, so long as they stay within the stated purpose. Actually, any motion within the stated purpose of the meeting would be fine, provided it doesn't violate some other rule.

[George Mervosh]

Amendments are okay, so long as they stay within the stated purpose.

There is no scope of notice regarding the subsidiary motion to amend something moved at a special meeting, sans bylaws. The motion that's made initially is subject to the stated purpose..........once it's made, there's no difference between what can be done at a special meeting vs. regular meeting.

[Guest Eric]

You folks are AMAZING! Thank you for the quick, concise and clear replies. The way forward is clear and the will of the congregation will carry the day!

Thank you all again - it is great to know there is such a reliable group out there to turn to for advice.

Eric

[Tim Wynn]

There is no scope of notice regarding the subsidiary motion to amend something moved at a special meeting, sans bylaws. The motion that's made initially is subject to the stated purpose..........once it's made, there's no difference between what can be done at a special meeting vs. regular meeting.

George, that's funny. I actually typed, "so long as the amendment keeps the main motion within the purpose of the meeting." Then, I erased it, thinking it superfluous, since no one could misconstrue what I mean. I forgot about you, George.

[Tim Wynn]

There is no scope of notice regarding the subsidiary motion to amend something moved at a special meeting, sans bylaws. The motion that's made initially is subject to the stated purpose..........once it's made, there's no difference between what can be done at a special meeting vs. regular meeting.

There is a difference. Amending the motion beyond the stated purpose would be out of order at a special meeting.

[George Mervosh]

Tim -

Is this in order at a special meeting?

"Or assume that the following is the pending motion: "that the City Council commend Officer George for his action in . . ." An amendment to strike out "commend" and insert "censure," although antagonistic to the original intent, is germane and in order because both ideas deal with the council's opinion of the officer's action."

Yes

If you agree it is, then you lost me on your point

[Tim Wynn]

Ok George, you have my attention, and as always, I trust you. However, there must be a limit to the ability to amend at a special meeting, right? For example: a special meeting is called to consider a motion to hold a car wash to raise money for ABC. Can a motion to sell the clubhouse to raise money for ABC be adopted?

[Rob Elsman]

Ok George, you have my attention, and as always, I trust you. However, there must be a limit to the ability to amend at a special meeting, right? For example: a special meeting is called to consider a motion to hold a car wash to raise money for ABC. Can a motion to sell the clubhouse to raise money for ABC be adopted?

As always, the rules concerning the germaneness of subsidiary motions to Amend are observed, RONR (10th ed.), p. 125, ll. 27-31; p. 129. l. 30, through p. 131, l. 35.

[Tim Wynn]

As always, the rules concerning the germaneness of subsidiary motions to Amend are observed, RONR (10th ed.), p. 125, ll. 27-31; p. 129. l. 30, through p. 131, l. 35.

Are you suggesting that finding additional ways to raise money for the same program or project is unrelated and has no bearing on the subject of raising money for that program or project?

[Rob Elsman]

Are you suggesting that finding additional ways to raise money for the same program or project is unrelated and has no bearing on the subject of raising money for that program or project?

I have no interest in the particular example. All I'm saying is that the germaneness rule will put limits on what motions to Amend can be admitted. Clearly, a motion to Amend that introduces a new topic that was not mentioned in the call of the special meeting would also not be germane to the main motion for which the special meeting was called to consider.

[Sean Hunt]

I would also caution against the usage of the word reconsider here; RONR has a very specific motion to Reconsider, and the word generally implies that a decision was come to, which is not the case. It's quite obvious from the context here (as opposed to table which often suffers from confusion between Postpone Definitely and Lay on the Table, as you've noted) what is meant though, so it should be fine. In the future, something along the lines of resume consideration[/].

[Tim Wynn]

I would also caution against the usage of the word reconsider here; RONR has a very specific motion to Reconsider, and the word generally implies that a decision was come to, which is not the case. It's quite obvious from the context here (as opposed to table which often suffers from confusion between Postpone Definitely and Lay on the Table, as you've noted) what is meant though, so it should be fine. In the future, something along the lines of resume consideration[/].

However, in this case the question is not still on the table, due to the time interval.

[Dan Honemann]

Hi Everyone - I'm new to this forum and have no particular expertise in RR - but I need some guidance on a situation. I will probably be long-winded in my post so I apologize in advance for any protocol violations.

I am the Chairman of the Executive Committee at my church (president, moderator etc). In May at our Annual Meeting it was decided that we would table a motion that some members had a problem with (I realize now 'lay on the table' was probably not the right approach) and that we would have study and discussion time and then call a Special Meeting to re take-up the motion.

I sent out a call for the Special Meeting and it includes only one agenda item as follows:

The purpose of this meeting is:

1. To reconsider the motion that was tabled at the Annual Meeting in May, 2011 regarding the Permanent Pastor Search Committee.

The motion from the May meeting is the same one that I will make at the Special Meeting - the intervening study and discussion resulted in a reaffirmation of the original motion. Our bylaws provide for Special Meetings as follows:

© Special meetings of the Church for purposes of transacting business may be called by the Pastor, the Board of Deacons, the Executive Committee, or on written request of five Members of the Church. Each of these meetings shall be called by the Clerk. The nature of the business to be transacted shall be stated in the call, and the action of the meeting shall be limited to the stated purpose.

Here is my dilemma/question. Apparently two people who still disagree with the original motion are planning to either make new motions at the Special Meeting OR attempt to Amend my original motion. Some references that I read seem to indicate that NO new motions (not included in the call), even related to the original may be made at a special meeting. So if a new motion is made I feel secure that I simply must not allow it. BUT...I'm not clear on making amendments to a motion at a special meeting.

Again, I apologize for the long post but any guidance, advice, support I can get would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Eric

At the outset of the special meeting, the presiding officer should either announce that the motion that was laid on the table (or whatever) in May is pending, or he should recognize a member who he knows will move to take the question from the table or reintroduce it in some other fashion (RONR, 10th ed., p. 368, ll. 31-36). As a consequence, competing main motions should not be a problem.

However, as has been noted, while the reintroduced May motion is pending, subsidiary motions to amend it will not be out of order simply because they may be antagonistic to the intent of the pending motion.

[Tim Wynn]

At the outset of the special meeting, the presiding officer should either announce that the motion that was laid on the table (or whatever) in May is pending, or he should recognize a member who he knows will move to take the question from the table or reintroduce it in some other fashion (RONR, 10th ed., p. 368, ll. 31-36). As a consequence, competing main motions should not be a problem.

However, as has been noted, while the reintroduced May motion is pending, subsidiary motions to amend it will not be out of order simply because they may be antagonistic to the intent of the pending motion.

Dan, could a motion laid on the table in May still be there in September?

[Dan Honemann]

Dan, could a motion laid on the table in May still be there in September?

Technically, no, but we are already outside of the book. Eric said "In May at our Annual Meeting it was decided that we would table a motion that some members had a problem with (I realize now 'lay on the table' was probably not the right approach) and that we would have study and discussion time and then call a Special Meeting to re take-up the motion." (emphasis supplied).

As a consequence, it is unclear just what, exactly, was intended at the time of the May meeting (table, postpone, refer, whatever). At this point, I do not think it makes any real difference, and so, in the first paragraph of my response, I offered several alternatives for the chair to take.

[Tim Wynn]

There is no scope of notice regarding the subsidiary motion to amend something moved at a special meeting, sans bylaws. The motion that's made initially is subject to the stated purpose..........once it's made, there's no difference between what can be done at a special meeting vs. regular meeting.

You learn something new every day, or as I like to say, "I learn something new every time George teaches me something new."