Committee wants to recommend single motion as a substitute for 26

[Guest Titus]

One enterprising member of our Council came up with 26 (!) motions, all on a single related topic (financial management). Council referred all of these motions to a committee, which I chair.

We are considering proposing a single motion in the nature of a substitute for *all* of these referred motions.

How would we go about doing this in a manner consistent with Robert's Rules of Order?

Thank you.

[Josh Martin]

One enterprising member of our Council came up with 26 (!) motions, all on a single related topic (financial management). Council referred all of these motions to a committee, which I chair.

We are considering proposing a single motion in the nature of a substitute for *all* of these referred motions.

How would we go about doing this in a manner consistent with Robert's Rules of Order?

I would suggest that the committee recommend the following resolution:

"Resolved, that all motions referred to the committee be rejected* and that the following motion be adopted: 'That... (text of motion).'"

*If the committee has also been referred other motions, add some identifier at this point, such as the date of referral or the subject of the motions.

This may require a Suspension of the Rules (2/3 vote) to pull off (I am unsure whether it would), but I imagine no one wants to sift through 26 motions, so I doubt it will be a problem.

[Guest Titus]

Thank you!

[Gary c Tesser]

Why don't you like p. 110 here, Josh?

[Josh Martin]

Why don't you like p. 110 here, Josh?

It's possible I am missing something, but it seems to me that while pg. 110 provides a method for a committee or member to offer multiple resolutions in a single motion, it does not provide a method to combine several motions into one when they have been introduced separately. Upon further reflection, however, it occurs to me that not all posters are familiar with the distinction between "resolution" and "motion," so it may well be that the "26 (!) motions" were actually offered as a single motion with 26 related resolutions. In this case, the committee could use the procedure on pgs, 523-524 to recommend a substitute for the motion, which could consist of as many or as few resolutions as the committee desired.

In the event that the member actually offered 26 separate motions, however, then I do not believe what is said on pg. 110 or pgs. 523-524 will serve the committee's purpose.

[Trina]

I would suggest that the committee recommend the following resolution:

"Resolved, that all motions referred to the committee be rejected* and that the following motion be adopted: 'That... (text of motion).'"

...

Could this be phrased in a more diplomatic way, and still serve the same purpose? I'm just picturing the reaction of Mr. 26(!)motions to this language... not worrying so much about his emotional state here, as about unnecessary conflict during the subsequent debate on the committee's proposal.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's possible I am missing something, but it seems to me that while pg. 110 provides a method for a committee or member to offer multiple resolutions in a single motion, it does not provide a method to combine several motions into one when they have been introduced separately. Upon further reflection, however, it occurs to me that not all posters are familiar with the distinction between "resolution" and "motion," so it may well be that the "26 (!) motions" were actually offered as a single motion with 26 related resolutions. In this case, the committee could use the procedure on pgs, 523-524 to recommend a substitute for the motion, which could consist of as many or as few resolutions as the committee desired.

In the event that the member actually offered 26 separate motions, however, then I do not believe what is said on pg. 110 or pgs. 523-524 will serve the committee's purpose.

Well, since they've been referred to a committee, it would be simple enough for the committee them to cast them as resolutions, and recommend their adoption in that form. Then the procedure on 110 would work fine.

[Gary c Tesser]

Thank you, Trina: that's part of what was eating at me too.

Also thanks, GPN.... It occurs to me:

It's possible I am missing something, but it seems to me that while pg. 110 provides a method for a committee or member to offer multiple resolutions in a single motion, it does not provide a method to combine several motions into one when they have been introduced separately.

Are you sure RONR prohibits it? ISTM that the routine legitimate procedures that are readily available (mainly amending beyond sane recognition with referring to a committee instructed to report in a year a close second) can do way worse to a motion than conflating it with other motions after it has been introduced.

Upon further reflection, however, it occurs to me that not all posters are familiar with the distinction between "resolution" and "motion," ...

It has always seemed to me that there is no practical distinction between resolutions and main motions; as some put it, a resolution is just dressed up in fancy clothes. How do you think the distinction applies here?

... so it may well be that the "26 (!) motions" were actually offered as a single motion with 26 related resolutions. In this case, the committee could use the procedure on pgs, 523-524 to recommend a substitute for the motion, ...

If that were the case, then why bother at all with a substitute? It would simply be the case that a

"bundling" (possibly a poor term; see below) motion like what p. 110 describes, could just be reported out as is, no?

N. B. Would anyone venture a better term than "bundling" to describe what the p. 110 motion does? "Collecting" (adj.) and "omnibus" don't seem to do it for me. I like the vivid image of a hand holding a bunch of wheat stalks, but calling this a "Fascist" motion might be misleading.

[Guest Guest]

Does anyone believe these weren't "bundled" (I like the term Mr. Tesser) when they were referred? We don't believe they adopted 26 subsidiary motions to commit? Proably nothing was pending when the bundle was referred.

Why can't the committee put the 26 proposals in any form they like when they bring it back?

[Josh Martin]

Could this be phrased in a more diplomatic way, and still serve the same purpose?

Probably. Since it is quite possible this will require a suspension of the rules anyway, the motion could be worded "Resolved, that the motions referred to the committee be substituted with the following: (wording of new motion)."

Well, since they've been referred to a committee, it would be simple enough for the committee them to cast them as resolutions, and recommend their adoption in that form. Then the procedure on 110 would work fine.

It's not as simple as rephrasing them into resolutions. The issue would be if the member had made them as separate motions. The committee can't simply start over from scratch - the motion(s) which have been referred to it must be brought back before the assembly in the same form as when they were referred to the committee, and then the assembly acts on the committee's recommendations. Since there isn't a "Combine the Questions" motion, there isn't really a convenient way to do this.

Are you sure RONR prohibits it?

No. I've been unable to find clear text on this subject one way or the other. The presumption seems to be that ordinary committees will usually not run into this situation. The only case in which this issue is addressed is with resolutions committees, which have special powers to combine motions.

It has always seemed to me that there is no practical distinction between resolutions and main motions; as some put it, a resolution is just dressed up in fancy clothes. How do you think the distinction applies here?

I may have been unclear. The issue is not that motions and resolutions are worded differently. As I understand pg. 110, a motion may contain one or more resolutions. So if this is simply a case of one motion with multiple resolutions, it may be amended just like any other motion. If it is actually 26 separate motions, things become more complicated, as there is not a convenient method in RONR to combine multiple motions.

If that were the case, then why bother at all with a substitute? It would simply be the case that a "bundling" (possibly a poor term; see below) motion like what p. 110 describes, could just be reported out as is, no?

I expect that the committee intends to make other changes besides mechanically combining the clauses - otherwise, you are correct that there would be no need for a substitute.

Does anyone believe these weren't "bundled" (I like the term Mr. Tesser) when they were referred?

We don't believe they adopted 26 subsidiary motions to commit? Proably nothing was pending when the bundle was referred.

No, I don't believe so. If I had thought a bit longer for my original response I suspect I would have come to the same conclusion. Based on the sheer magnitude of motions involved, it seems likely that this is a motion of the sort described on pg. 110 (or a "bundled" motion).

Why can't the committee put the 26 proposals in any form they like when they bring it back?

When a motion is referred to a committee, the committee must report the motion back in the same form it was referred to the committee. The committee then proposes what the assembly should do with the motion - adopt it, reject it, amend it, etc. An ordinary committee does not have the power to change the motion on its own. It is for this reason that it is quite important whether the original was only one motion or 26.