Renewal of amendment to main motion

[TraderFred]

Our By-laws are silent on this, so we default to Robert's Rules. In a previous meeting, an amendment to a main motion was narrowly defeated. Discussion ( and vote) on the motion will continue at a new session. The question is, is it permissible under Robert's Rules to reintroduce the same amendment in a new session.

[J. J.]

Short answer, no (p, 338, ll. 1-9, pp. 340-41).

 

Longer answer, the rules may be suspended to permit the renewal of the amendment.  In addition, the motion may be referred to a committee which can propose the same amendment (p, 176, ll. 20-27).

[Josh Martin]

The question is, is it permissible under Robert's Rules to reintroduce the same amendment in a new session.

 

Yes.

 

Short answer, no (p, 338, ll. 1-9, pp. 340-41).

 

The rule on pg. 338 says it can't be renewed at the same session. The rule on pgs. 340-341 says that the main motion can't be renewed (because it's still under the control of the assembly). The question was whether the defeated amendment can be renewed at a later session. The applicable rule here is pg. 337, lines 22-28.

[J. J.]

 

The rule on pg. 338 says it can't be renewed at the same session. The rule on pgs. 340-341 says that the main motion can't be renewed (because it's still under the control of the assembly). The question was whether the defeated amendment can be renewed at a later session. The applicable rule here is pg. 337, lines 22-28.

 

I would take p. 341, ll. 1-4 as being a "specific rule" as the term is used on p. 337, l. 23.  I also think p. 343, ll. 26-29 would apply.

 

That said, I would concede that the simple passage of time may create "a change in wording or circumstances sufficient to present substantially a new question, in which case this [the motion to amend] becomes technically a different motion."  Certainly, if the majority feels that there is a change in circumstances that is sufficient to make this the amendment a new question, I would agree.

[Josh Martin]

I would take p. 341, ll. 1-4 as being a "specific rule" as the term is used on p. 337, l. 23.  I also think p. 343, ll. 26-29 would apply.

 

That said, I would concede that the simple passage of time may create "a change in wording or circumstances sufficient to present substantially a new question, in which case this [the motion to amend] becomes technically a different motion."  Certainly, if the majority feels that there is a change in circumstances that is sufficient to make this the amendment a new question, I would agree.

 

An amendment does not conflict with a main motion - it is designed for the explicit purpose of changing the main motion, so I don't think pg. 343 applies. I still don't see how pg. 341 applies. The main motion is still within the control of the assembly, and it therefore cannot be renewed. The amendment, however, is not still under the control of the assembly. It was defeated, and I see no reason why it cannot be renewed at a later session.

 

The "substantially the same question" rule is in the context of whether a main motion or an amendment is in order at the same session. A main motion or amendment which has been defeated may be renewed at a later session, even if it is the exact same question.

[J. J.]

An amendment does not conflict with a main motion - it is designed for the explicit purpose of changing the main motion, so I don't think pg. 343 applies. I still don't see how pg. 341 applies. The main motion is still within the control of the assembly, and it therefore cannot be renewed. The amendment, however, is not still under the control of the assembly. It was defeated, and I see no reason why it cannot be renewed at a later session.

 

The "substantially the same question" rule is in the context of whether a main motion or an amendment is in order at the same session. A main motion or amendment which has been defeated may be renewed at a later session, even if it is the exact same question.

 

On p. 343, ll. 26-29, is in the context of "motions" not main motions specifically.  The main motion, which is not improper in itself, is still within the control of the assembly.  There are, as noted, methods for bringing the same amendment again, which may make it a technically different amendment (even though the amendment is identically worded to the one defeated).

 

Now, let me ask you this related question.  If at the first meeting, the assembly had rejected a motion to Postpone Indefinitely at the previous session in regard to this motion, would it be in order to renew it at this meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

A rejected subsidiary motion to Amend, and a rejected motion to Postpone Indefinitely, can be renewed at a later session.

 

I suppose I should hasten to add (before I get jumped on) that if, however, a rejected motion to Amend has been carried over to the later session as the subject of a motion to Reconsider that was made but not finally disposed of, then, of course, it may not be renewed.

[J. J.]

A rejected subsidiary motion to Amend, and a rejected motion to Postpone Indefinitely, can be renewed at a later session.

 

I suppose I should hasten to add (before I get jumped on) that if, however, a rejected motion to Amend has been carried over to the later session as the subject of a motion to Reconsider that was made but not finally disposed of, then, of course, it may not be renewed.

 

 

Is it "substantially a new question?"

[George Mervosh]

 

Is it "substantially a new question?"

 

The "substantially the same question" rule is in the context of whether a main motion or an amendment is in order at the same session.

 

I agree with Josh's interpretation. 

[TraderFred]

Thank you all for your interpretations and input. This is always a great learning experience.

[Josh Martin]

On p. 343, ll. 26-29, is in the context of "motions" not main motions specifically.  The main motion, which is not improper in itself, is still within the control of the assembly.  There are, as noted, methods for bringing the same amendment again, which may make it a technically different amendment (even though the amendment is identically worded to the one defeated).

 

I'm not saying that pg. 343, lines 26-29 has no application to amendments at all - just that it has no application in this situation. If, for instance, the main motion had been postponed while the amendment was still pending, then the amendment could not be renewed, because the amendment would still be within the control of the assembly. In this case, the main motion is still within the control of the assembly, but the amendment is not.

 

Now, let me ask you this related question.  If at the first meeting, the assembly had rejected a motion to Postpone Indefinitely at the previous session in regard to this motion, would it be in order to renew it at this meeting?

 

Yes.

 

Is it "substantially a new question?"

 

Probably not, but it doesn't matter. The "substantially a new question" rule is used to determine whether a motion can be renewed at the same session. A motion can be renewed at a later session even if it is exactly the same question (assuming there is no other rule which prevents its renewal).