Guest Mike V. Posted September 8, 2012 at 01:10 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 01:10 PM Is a motion to amend a pending motion out of order if made by one who will not vote for the pending motion, even if the amendment is approved?I am thinking of the proponent of a substitute motion who seeks to have the first motion amended, during the perfecting process, to change its effect to the same as the substitute, thus having the effect of rendering either the first motion or the substiute the same, regardless of which is eventually becomes the main motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted September 8, 2012 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 01:42 PM Has the substitute been moved? If yes, wouldn't that be the pending question, and an amendment to the 1st motion would not be proper as that motion is not the immediately pending one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 8, 2012 at 02:05 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 02:05 PM Is a motion to amend a pending motion out of order if made by one who will not vote for the pending motion, even if the amendment is approved?No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 8, 2012 at 02:54 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 02:54 PM Has the substitute been moved? If yes, wouldn't that be the pending question, and an amendment to the 1st motion would not be proper as that motion is not the immediately pending one?My guess is that somebody is going to jump on you about this pretty soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike V. Posted September 8, 2012 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 02:57 PM OK. More facts.Motion made, 2ndSubstitute offered, 2ndMy understanding is that the process is that amendments to the first motion are in order at the point, to perfect it, therefore, the question is could someone propose an amendment to the first motion, which is the pending motion in the sense that it is in the process of being perfected, that renders it the same as the substitute, even if they will not vote for the pending motion, if it is amended as they desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:00 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:00 PM The short answer is that amendments may be offered by any member of the assembly, regardless of how, or even whether, they plan to vote on the main motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike V. Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:02 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:02 PM Bruce: Thank you for your comments. Can you give me the "long" answer, or is the answer simply by virtue of the fact that Roberts has no explicit statement limiting the right to offer an amendment to only those who will support the motion if amended? I appreciate your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:09 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:09 PM Well, certainly it's the last part of your question that is true. RONR defines members as persons entitled to full participation in the proceedings of a deliberative assembly, including the right to attend meeting, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote (RONR, 11th ed. p. 3, ll.1-5,). There is no further qualification to which motions can be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:18 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 03:18 PM Can you give me the "long" answer . . .Consider this: A member makes a motion and, during the course of debate, is convinced that its adoption would be a bad idea. So he votes against it (even though it remained unchanged from the motion he made). Certainly you can see how this could also apply to a member proposing a change to a pending motion.This is not to say the maker of a motion isn't presumed to (at least initially) support its adoption, just that, when it comes to voting, there's no requirement that he vote in the affirmative. What the maker of a motion is prohibited from doing, by the way, is speaking against the motion in debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted September 8, 2012 at 08:56 PM Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 at 08:56 PM My guess is that somebody is going to jump on you about this pretty soon. Jump on me for asking a question?? Perish the thought!! after reading the responses, I'm wondering if Maybe I misunderstood the original question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted September 9, 2012 at 01:34 AM Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 at 01:34 AM tc, you do see that the beginning of Mike V.'s Post 5 answers your question, yes? (Bottom paragraph on p. 154, and the example beginning with the chair's remark on p. 158, line 32. Though that was hardly jumping by MIke v.; he ;hardly moved in his chair. For that matter, Post 4 was awfully watery as wrath goes.)5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted September 9, 2012 at 11:02 AM Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 at 11:02 AM tc, you do see that the beginning of Mike V.'s Post 5 answers your question, yes?yes, I do, thanks.(Bottom paragraph on p. 154, and the example beginning with the chair's remark on p. 158, line 32.got it; thanks for the references. I'd apparently been laboring under the misapprehension (from past experience, I suppose) that a motion to substitute one entire motion for another in its entirety (which I thought was the original scenario here) was different from a substitution of a section or sections less than the whole motion.Though that was hardly jumping by MIke v.; he ;hardly moved in his chair. For that matter, Post 4 was awfully watery as wrath goes.)5No kidding!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.