Re-amending a reconsidered motion

[Guest Keith Tyler]

Hi all,

An issue came up during a recent meeting that could not be answered to satisfaction.

A motion had been made, a particular amendment was moved, but failed. The main motion itself also failed.

Later in the meeting, the body voted to reconsider the same main motion. The amendment that had failed during the previous consideration was again made, and the Chair ruled it out of order as the amendment had already failed during the prior consideration. The Chair was appealed, but no rule could be found to refute the Chair's ruling, and it stood.

Is a motion to amend a reconsidered motion in order if the same amendment had been already moved (and failed) during the previous consideration?

If not, could you move to reconsider a prior amendment, and is that in order while reconsidering a prior question?

 

TIA

Kdt

[George Mervosh]

This the way it should have been done -

 

" If it is desired to reconsider the vote on a subsidiary or incidental motion (an amendment, for example) after the main question to which it adhered has been finally disposed of (by adoption, rejection, or indefinite postponement), the vote on the main question, or on its indefinite postponement, must also be reconsidered (see also Standard Characteristic 2). In such a case, one motion to Reconsider should be made to cover both the vote on the subsidiary or incidental motion whose reconsideration is desired, and the vote on the main question (or its indefinite postponement). The member who makes this motion to Reconsider must have voted with the prevailing side in the original vote on the subsidiary or incidental motion—that is, on the motion which will be reconsidered first if the reconsideration takes place."  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 327-328.

[Josh Martin]

Is a motion to amend a reconsidered motion in order if the same amendment had been already moved (and failed) during the previous consideration?

 

No. The chair's ruling was correct.

 

If not, could you move to reconsider a prior amendment, and is that in order while reconsidering a prior question?

 

The above citation has the appropriate procedure if a member had wished to reconsider the amendment before someone had made a motion to Reconsider the main motion. I believe it would also be in order to move to reconsider just the amendment while the main motion was pending, including when it was pending as the result of an adopted motion to Reconsider.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I believe it would also be in order to move to reconsider just the amendment while the main motion was pending, including when it was pending as the result of an adopted motion to Reconsider.

 

I believe so, too -- unless some other amendment was already adopted that would conflict with the previously rejected one (see p. 318, ll. 19-28). In that case, the vote on the adopted amendment would first have to be reconsidered.

[Guest Keith Tyler]

Hmm. It seems strange and out of process for the amendment to the motion to need to be reconsidered before the motion itself is reconsidered.

 

This is what happened:

1. Motion A is made for the first time

2. Amendment X is moved, fails

3. Main motion A fails.

Later:

 

4. Motion to reconsider motion A, succeeds, reconsidered motion A proceeds on the floor

5. Amendment X is again moved -- out of order.

 

 

The way George M. described it above, it should have been:

4. Motion to reconsider the amendment X to that earlier motion A, which had failed

5. If successful, then debate amendment X

6. If successful, then move to reconsider motion A, as just amended

7. If successful, debate amended motion A.

 

Most likely people will again not vote for amendment X unless they are already confident that the motion to reconsider motion A as well as motion A itself will both be successful. But at that time, there is no idea if Motion A will be reconsidered at all.

It's also odd to me that we can amend a motion while said motion is not itself on the floor, and even if said motion did not previously pass.

I appreciate the advice, though I hope it doesn't come up again. Thanks to everyone.

[Dan Honemann]

Hmm. It seems strange and out of process for the amendment to the motion to need to be reconsidered before the motion itself is reconsidered.

 

This is what happened:

1. Motion A is made for the first time

2. Amendment X is moved, fails

3. Main motion A fails.

Later:

 

4. Motion to reconsider motion A, succeeds, reconsidered motion A proceeds on the floor

5. Amendment X is again moved -- out of order.

 

 

The way George M. described it above, it should have been:

4. Motion to reconsider the amendment X to that earlier motion A, which had failed

5. If successful, then debate amendment X

6. If successful, then move to reconsider motion A, as just amended

7. If successful, debate amended motion A.

 

Most likely people will again not vote for amendment X unless they are already confident that the motion to reconsider motion A as well as motion A itself will both be successful. But at that time, there is no idea if Motion A will be reconsidered at all.

It's also odd to me that we can amend a motion while said motion is not itself on the floor, and even if said motion did not previously pass.

I appreciate the advice, though I hope it doesn't come up again. Thanks to everyone.

 

I'm afraid that you have the correct procedure all mixed up.

[Josh Martin]

The way George M. described it above, it should have been:

4. Motion to reconsider the amendment X to that earlier motion A, which had failed

5. If successful, then debate amendment X

6. If successful, then move to reconsider motion A, as just amended

7. If successful, debate amended motion A.

 

Most likely people will again not vote for amendment X unless they are already confident that the motion to reconsider motion A as well as motion A itself will both be successful. But at that time, there is no idea if Motion A will be reconsidered at all.

 

No, what George is saying is that a member could have moved, in one motion, to Reconsider the vote on the amendment and the main motion. If adopted, the amendment would be the immediately pending motion and would be before the assembly in the same condition it was in before it was defeated. The main motion would also be pending. After the amendment was disposed of, the assembly would proceed to consider the main motion.

 

It is also in order for a member to move to Reconsider just the main motion and, if that is adopted, a member can then move to Reconsider the amendment while the main motion is pending.

[Guest Edgar]

It is also in order for a member to move to Reconsider just the main motion and, if that is adopted, a member can then move to Reconsider the amendment while the main motion is pending.

 

In this instance, when the main motion is pending again in its original form, what's the advantage of making a motion to Reconsider the previous amendment vs. simply making that same amendment again?

[Josh Martin]

In this instance, when the main motion is pending again in its original form, what's the advantage of making a motion to Reconsider the previous amendment vs. simply making that same amendment again?

 

The advantage is that Reconsider is in order and simply making the same amendment again is not.

[Guest Edgar]

The advantage is that Reconsider is in order and simply making the same amendment again is not. 

 

Okay, I guess I thought that Reconsidering the main motion brought it back to either its original form or its final pre-vote form, either as amended or not. It's seems unduly burdensome to have to, once again, Reconsider the amendments that failed. And to keep track of who voted against them (i.e. on the prevailing side).

[Josh Martin]

Okay, I guess I thought that Reconsidering the main motion brought it back to either its original form or its final pre-vote form, either as amended or not. It's seems unduly burdensome to have to, once again, Reconsider the amendments that failed. And to keep track of who voted against them (i.e. on the prevailing side).

 

Reconsider brings the motion back to the same form it was in just before the vote was taken. So it's not in order to make an amendment which has previously been defeated, exactly as would have been the case when the motion was originally pending. If a member wishes to make such an amendment again, the motion to Reconsider will be necessary. Personally, I think it would be more burdensome to let anyone move any defeated amendment again.

 

This doesn't mean that anyone needs to keep track of who voted on the prevailing side of anything. The chair just takes the member's word for it that he voted on the prevailing side.

[Guest Edgar]

Reconsider brings the motion back to the same form it was in just before the vote was taken. So it's not in order to make an amendment which has previously been defeated, exactly as would have been the case when the motion was originally pending. If a member wishes to make such an amendment again, the motion to Reconsider will be necessary.

 

Got it. Thanks.