Friendly Amendments (redux)

[Bill G.]

Good morning all,

I've posed this question once before and although I understand the answers that were provided and read the relevant sections of RONR as directed by those answers, I still have a point or two that needs clarification.

I was watching our local County Commissioners in session the other day. One member made a motion to do "X"...that motion received a proper second. The Chair read the pending motion and asked if there was any discussion. Another member made a motion to amend the original motion and before a second was offerred, the maker of the original motion inquired if this was being offerred as a "friendly amendment". The response from the maker of the amendment motion said "yes". The maker of the original motion stated that she could accept that. There was a proper second and the Chair then asked if there was any discussion on the amendment. A vote was taken and the amendment was approved. The Chair then asked if there was any discussion on the now amended original motion and having no response, a vote was taken.

What is this with the maker of the original motion saying that they could "accept" the amendment? Is this just some courtesy thing? What if they said they wouldn't accept the amendment? Does the motion to amend die? The impression that is being left is that if the maker of the original motion says they won't accept the proposed amendment that the amendment goes away.

Thank you all and I apologize for bring this up again.

[George Mervosh]

Good morning all,

I've posed this question once before and although I understand the answers that were provided and read the relevant sections of RONR as directed by those answers, I still have a point or two that needs clarification.

I was watching our local County Commissioners in session the other day. One member made a motion to do "X"...that motion received a proper second. The Chair read the pending motion and asked if there was any discussion. Another member made a motion to amend the original motion and before a second was offerred, the maker of the original motion inquired if this was being offerred as a "friendly amendment". The response from the maker of the amendment motion said "yes". The maker of the original motion stated that she could accept that. There was a proper second and the Chair then asked if there was any discussion on the amendment. A vote was taken and the amendment was approved. The Chair then asked if there was any discussion on the now amended original motion and having no response, a vote was taken.

What is this with the maker of the original motion saying that they could "accept" the amendment? Is this just some courtesy thing? What if they said they wouldn't accept the amendment? Does the motion to amend die? The impression that is being left is that if the maker of the original motion says they won't accept the proposed amendment that the amendment goes away.

Thank you all and I apologize for bring this up again.

I bolded the important part......once the chair has stated the question, the answers are:

1) It's not proper or necessary.

2) Probably just a 100+ year old misunderstanding....and a very common one, by the way.

3) N/A See #1

4) N/A See #1

[David A Foulkes]

Another member made a motion to amend the original motion and before a second was offerred, the maker of the original motion inquired if this was being offerred as a "friendly amendment". The response from the maker of the amendment motion said "yes". The maker of the original motion stated that she could accept that.

Take a read of p. 40 ll. 16 through p. 41 (RONR 11th Ed.). It sounds to me like this is what the original maker had in mind. As you'll read, this is acceptable before the chair states the question, but not after.

[Rev Ed]

In my experience with "friendly amendments" it is most likely to comeo from the Chairman - normally in assisting the mover to make the motion more clear. For example, if a member makes a motion "To not provide a donation to organization x", the Chairman may offer to reword the motion to read "To provide a donation to organization x" as in the first wording, both a yes vote and a no vote would have the same effect. This is the most likely version of a "friendly amendment" that I have experienced.

But once stated by the Chairman, the motion belongs to the group, not the mover. Thus it is up to the group to accept (or reject) an amendment, not the mover.

Also, once the motion belongs to the group, even if the mover does not agree to this "friendly amendment", the group can still approve the amendment, as it is now their motion.