Friendly Amendments

[Bill G.]

Good morning,

At a recent meeting, one member offerred a motion. The chair read the motion to the group and there was a proper second. The maker of the motion was recognized and explained the reason for his motion. A second member was properly recognized and wanted to make some changes in the language. One change was to add certain punctuation and another change was to delete certain words to clarify the motion. The chair asked this member if she wished to offer this as a "friendly amendment". She said that was her intent. The vice chair of the group stated loudly that he rejected the friendly amendment without a second to the amendment nor being recognized by the chair as having the floor. The amendment was ultimately debated and voted on by the group.

Ques. How do friendly amendments get processed? Do they need a second? Was the Vice Chair's remarks appropriate?

Thank you.

[Bill G.]

Good morning again...I forgot to ask...Does the original maker of the motion or any other member have the right to "accept" or "reject" a friendly motion by merely stating same?

[Dan Honemann]

Good morning again...I forgot to ask...Does the original maker of the motion or any other member have the right to "accept" or "reject" a friendly motion by merely stating same?

So called "friendly amendments" are handled under the same rules as amendments generally (RONR, 11th ed., p. 162).

[tctheatc]

check out FAQ #8

Once a motion is properly before the assembly, it belongs to the assembly. amendments should be properly moved and seconded; it's not up to the maker of the original motion to accept or reject them

[Guest Nancy N.]

To the question in Post #2: no. (And, though this is me being picky and it's not Robert's Rules, "stating same," though people often say they are, doesn't cut it: you have to say what you're saying.) Amendments are adopted by majority vote (or, of course, unanimous consent).

Question 1: Well, yes.

"Appropriate" (question 3, or so .. Great Steaming Cobnuts, I'm losing track): Yes the vice-chair's objection was appropriate: the chair was just plain wrong to bring up the mythical "friendly amendment."

But this statement by the vice-chair was debate, so the vice chair, like everyone else, should not have said this without having the floor, because shouting out is just plain disruptive.

"The amendment was ultimately debated and voted on by the group.": That's the bottom line.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Men, I was working on this, why didn't you wait for me?

[tctheatc]

Dan didn't wait for me, either; look at the times...