Multiple pending motions

[Guest Janine]

Our organization is holding its annual meeting next month at which we approve the annual budget proposed by the finance committee. Is it correct that once the motion is made to approve the annual budget and receives a second, after discussion the group must first vote on the pending motion before a new motion proposing a different annual budget is properly made and voted upon? In other words, a second motion for a different budget proposal cannot be made during the discussion on the first budget motion and there cannot be two motions with two different budget proposals pending at the same time? If a member of the group opposes the budget proposed by the finance committee, is it correct that that motion must first be defeated before considering a new motion for a different budget proposal?

[George Mervosh]

When the budget is pending, any number of amendments can be made that must be disposed of before the final budget (or final budget as amended) is voted upon.

[Josh Martin]

Is it correct that once the motion is made to approve the annual budget and receives a second, after discussion the group must first vote on the pending motion before a new motion proposing a different annual budget is properly made and voted upon? In other words, a second motion for a different budget proposal cannot be made during the discussion on the first budget motion and there cannot be two motions with two different budget proposals pending at the same time? If a member of the group opposes the budget proposed by the finance committee, is it correct that that motion must first be defeated before considering a new motion for a different budget proposal?

It is correct that no two main motions may be pending simultaneously, but the members are free to offer amendments to the budget when it is pending. If it is desired to adopt an entirely different budget, this may be accomplished by voting down the budget and proposing a new one or by offering the alternate budget by means of a motion to substitute when the first budget is pending.

[George Mervosh]

It is correct that no two main motions may be pending simultaneously, but the members are free to offer amendments to the budget when it is pending. If it is desired to adopt an entirely different budget, this may be accomplished by voting down the budget and proposing a new one or by offering the alternate budget by means of a motion to substitute when the first budget is pending.

Is that really in order in the same session? (not rhetorical)

[jstackpo]

I would think so, since the "new" budget presumably presents a "substantially new question" - p. 338.

How much is "substantial"? That is for the assembly to decide if the question comes up, via a point of order.

[George Mervosh]

I would think so, since the "new" budget presumably presents a "substantially new question" - p. 338.

How much is "substantial"? That is for the assembly to decide if the question comes up, via a point of order.

Which I would make

[jstackpo]

And which point I would rule as "not well taken".

[George Mervosh]

And which point I would rule as "not well taken".

My thinking is the rejection of the budget means they don't want to adopt a budget this session.....not which budget will we adopt.

[J. J.]

And which point I would rule as "not well taken".

And which I would appeal the decision of the chair.

[Gary Novosielski]

My thinking is the rejection of the budget means they don't want to adopt a budget this session.....not which budget will we adopt.

That would depend on the bylaws. It's not uncommon for them to mandate the adoption of a budget under which all (or some) expenditures must take place.

[Trina]

My thinking is the rejection of the budget means they don't want to adopt a budget this session.....not which budget will we adopt.

Assemblies that are not very familiar with parliamentary procedure may have a lot of discomfort with the amendment process in RONR. In other words, it's easier for many people to think in terms of just voting down a proposal/motion they don't like, and then making a new motion incorporating changes reflecting what people just said during debate on the first motion. In a situation like that, the point of order you suggest (perhaps a point of order made by the only member of the assembly who has greater familiarity with RONR) should probably be ruled not well taken.

[George Mervosh]

Assemblies that are not very familiar with parliamentary procedure may have a lot of discomfort with the amendment process in RONR. In other words, it's easier for many people to think in terms of just voting down a proposal/motion they don't like, and then making a new motion incorporating changes reflecting what people just said during debate on the first motion. In a situation like that, the point of order you suggest (perhaps a point of order made by the only member of the assembly who has greater familiarity with RONR) should probably be ruled not well taken.

Extremely practical. But if a motion to adopt the budget is defeated, what is the rule regarding renewing it during the same session? They can't be based on not understanding the subsidiary motion to amend?

[Josh Martin]

Is that really in order in the same session? (not rhetorical)

Yes, if the new budget presents a substantially new question.

My thinking is the rejection of the budget means they don't want to adopt a budget this session.....not which budget will we adopt.

I disagree. The rejection of the budget simply means the assembly has not chosen to adopt that particular budget. This is especially true for an assembly which has a rule or custom of adopting a budget, which appears to be the case for the original poster.

Assemblies that are not very familiar with parliamentary procedure may have a lot of discomfort with the amendment process in RONR. In other words, it's easier for many people to think in terms of just voting down a proposal/motion they don't like, and then making a new motion incorporating changes reflecting what people just said during debate on the first motion. In a situation like that, the point of order you suggest (perhaps a point of order made by the only member of the assembly who has greater familiarity with RONR) should probably be ruled not well taken.

I suspect you're getting at what is said on RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456, lines 14-18. While it is certainly true that there are instances in which the rules should be relaxed, the question here is what the rules are to begin with.

Extremely practical. But if a motion to adopt the budget is defeated, what is the rule regarding renewing it during the same session? They can't be based on not understanding the subsidiary motion to amend?

"No main motion is in order which presents substantially the same question as a motion that was finally disposed of earlier in the same session by being rejected" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 111, lines 11-13). In my opinion, a new budget may or may not present substantially the same question as a budget which has been rejected, depending on the extent to which the budgets differ.

[George Mervosh]

Interesting opinions....I'm having trouble digesting it.....but interesting. Perhaps the exact facts of what budget #2 consists of might be the key if we're going to call it a substantially new question.

[Shmuel Gerber]

It is correct that no two main motions may be pending simultaneously, but the members are free to offer amendments to the budget when it is pending. If it is desired to adopt an entirely different budget, this may be accomplished by voting down the budget and proposing a new one or by offering the alternate budget by means of a motion to substitute when the first budget is pending.

Is that really in order in the same session? (not rhetorical)

Interesting opinions....I'm having trouble digesting it.....but interesting. Perhaps the exact facts of what budget #2 consists of might be the key if we're going to call it a substantially new question.

George,

I don't get what it is that you are having trouble with -- but probably Dan H. will come along and tell me I just don't get it.

Wouldn't you at least agree with what Josh Martin wrote originally, which related to "if it is desired to adopt an entirely different budget", this can be done at the same session?

[George Mervosh]

George,

I don't get what it is that you are having trouble with -- but probably Dan H. will come along and tell me I just don't get it.

Wouldn't you at least agree with what Josh Martin wrote originally, which related to "if it is desired to adopt an entirely different budget", this can be done at the same session?

Heck if I knew the answer to that I wouldn't have posted so much

I guess my problem, SG, is that the budget (which everyone is assuming is awful) can be properly amended via striking out and inserting certain line items, adding, striking out, or a substitute can be proposed, it can be sent to a committee to suggest amendments, etc. I don't think voting one down and starting fresh during the same session (especially because assemblies have troubles with the amendment process) is the {best} procedurally proper method to get the job done.

[Trina]

Extremely practical. But if a motion to adopt the budget is defeated, what is the rule regarding renewing it during the same session? They can't be based on not understanding the subsidiary motion to amend?

What I'm trying to understand, with respect to the amendment process, is the following:

Just because a motion CAN be amended and perfected via the processes described in RONR, that doesn't seem to constitute a requirement that a motion MUST be brought to its final form exclusively via that process. In other words, if the assembly decides to take the brute force (and undoubtedly less efficient, in many cases) approach of voting down an unsatisfactory version of a motion after debate, and then considering another version of the motion (incorporating some of the comments that members made during the earlier debate), should that be disallowed under the rules?

Isn't the judgement of it being 'a substantially new question' ultimately in the eyes of the assembly?

I'm viewing this question from the point of view of the informal assemblies I participate in -- I've repeatedly seen this pattern of perfecting a motion. The word 'amendment' is fairly foreign to the members, and if an amendment is offered, some members of the assembly interpret this as an attempt to consider multiple motions at the same time, and their instinct (quite correct, in many ways) is that the group should not be considering two motions at the same time. Thus, they prefer to continue on and vote on the first motion as stated, vote it down, and then start work on a new (modified) version of the motion. The procedure is not perfect, and perhaps takes a bit more time than doing it by amendment. However, I didn't think this approach was actually in violation of any rules.

Doesn't it simply come down to the interpretation of what 'substantially new' means? Or is there more to it?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Heck if I knew the answer to that I wouldn't have posted so much

I guess my problem, SG, is that the budget (which everyone is assuming is awful) can be properly amended via striking out and inserting certain line items, adding, striking out, or a substitute can be proposed, it can be sent to a committee to suggest amendments, etc. I don't think voting one down and starting fresh during the same session (especially because assemblies have troubles with the amendment process) is the {best} procedurally proper method to get the job done.

C'mon, George, are you going to make me crack open the book and type stuff?

(Actually, I can copy-and-paste.)

I think the following passages are relevant (boldface emphasis added):

"2) No main motion is in order that presents substantially the same question as a motion that was finally disposed of earlier in the same session by being rejected . . ." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 111, ll. 11-13; already cited by Mr. Martin)

"if a proposed amendment is related to the main motion in such a way that, after the adoption, rejection, or temporary disposal of the present main motion, the essential idea of the amendment could not be introduced as an independent resolution during the same session, the amendment is germane and should be admitted, since there will not, or may not, be any opportunity to present it later. This test cannot be reliably used to determine that an amendment is out of order, since it is sometimes possible for an amendment to be germane even if, regardless of action on the present main motion, the idea embodied in the amendment could be introduced independently later in the same session." (p. 136, l. 34 to p. 137, l. 10)

"5) If the general problem posed by a main motion might be better dealt with by an alternative measure that cannot conveniently be proposed as an amendment in the form of a substitute (see above), a member speaking in debate can urge rejection of the pending main motion, saying that if it is voted down he will offer a different main motion which he can describe briefly and which deals with the general problem in a substantially different way (see, however, p. 111, no. 2)." (p. 116, ll. 1-9)

So, the fact that a motion could have been presented as an amendment does not necessarily preclude its introduction as an independent motion later at the same session. And the text specifically notes that, for the sake of convenience, a motion can be voted down and an alternative may then introduced, rather than trying to always do things by amendment.

[George Mervosh]

I guess the chair and members will determine if it's substantially different.

Thanks S.G. When can we buy the cd to copy and paste?

[Trina]

...

"5) If the general problem posed by a main motion might be better dealt with by an alternative measure that cannot conveniently be proposed as an amendment in the form of a substitute (see above), a member speaking in debate can urge rejection of the pending main motion, saying that if it is voted down he will offer a different main motion which he can describe briefly and which deals with the general problem in a substantially different way (see, however, p. 111, no. 2)." (p. 116, ll. 1-9)

So, the fact that a motion could have been presented as an amendment does not necessarily preclude its introduction as an independent motion later at the same session. And the text specifically notes that, for the sake of convenience, a motion can be voted down and an alternative may then introduced, rather than trying to always do things by amendment.

Thank you for posting this -- it seems to address my concerns also.

[jstackpo]

When can we buy the cd to copy and paste?

You can copy-paste out of the Kindle edition (at least I can on my Mac).

A random excerpt:

In principle, all reports of officers in a society are incident to administrative duties that these officers have by virtue of provisions in the bylaws or other rules. Strictly speaking, in a purely deliberative assembly, the officers make no reports.

Robert, Henry M. III (2011-09-27). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (Kindle Locations 9094-9095). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition.

The location citation was suplied automatically when I did the copy-paste.

[Josh Martin]

You can copy-paste out of the Kindle edition (at least I can on my Mac).

Unfortunately, the Kindle edition is not currently available, so those of us who didn't jump on the bandwagon at the time are out of luck for now.