Guest Marilyn Posted June 30, 2014 at 04:20 PM Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 at 04:20 PM Member 1 makes a motion that is seconded by another member. A third member wants to amend the motion. Can member 1 refuse to accept the ammendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 30, 2014 at 04:43 PM Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 at 04:43 PM Member 1 makes a motion that is seconded by another member. A third member wants to amend the motion. Can member 1 refuse to accept the ammendment? Member 1 can decline to accept the modification as long as the motion in question has not been stated by the chair, thereby placing the motion before the assembly. If the chair has stated the question, the motion belongs to the assembly itself and that third member may offer an amendment. At this point the original maker has no right of refusal in the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted June 30, 2014 at 06:01 PM Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 at 06:01 PM Just to be sure-Is it possible for the original motion maker and seconder to refuse to accept an amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 30, 2014 at 06:07 PM Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 at 06:07 PM No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 30, 2014 at 10:10 PM Report Share Posted June 30, 2014 at 10:10 PM Just to be sure-Is it possible for the original motion maker and seconder to refuse to accept an amendment. No. Once the question is before the assembly, the original maker of the motion has no more rights with respect to the motion than any member (and the seconder is completely irrelevant). At that point the maker can't even withdraw the motion without permission, much less interfere with the amendment process. This stuff about checking with the maker (and sometimes seconder) to see if amendments are okay with them is a persistent misconception--but a misconception nonethteless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennycowles Posted July 16, 2014 at 10:19 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 10:19 PM Motion to Amend Constitution, to change gender specific language to gender neutral (under a 30 day notice). All gender terms such as: Man, his, him, he or she - each instance is listed, crossed out and changed for gender neutral terms. However the term Chairman was not included in the original motion posted 30 days prior. Question, can the motion be amended to include changing Chairman to Chair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 16, 2014 at 10:23 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 10:23 PM I don't see why not. But I also don't see the point in the first place. "Madame Chairman" is perfectly acceptable language. Just please don't change "penmanship" to "penwomanship". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 16, 2014 at 10:26 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 10:26 PM But I also don't see the point in the first place. "Madame Chairman" is perfectly acceptable language. You might feel differently if you were Gail instead of Gary. "Madame Chairman" is an anachronistic absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennycowles Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:15 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:15 PM Madame Chair or Mr. Chair is simply more appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennycowles Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:25 PM Under Amendments of Constitutions, RONR says that "no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended". I interpret this to mean no "new" word changes can be made. Existing changes contain within the original motion may be further revised, but wholly new ones, can not be added. What do you folks think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:30 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:30 PM Madame Chair or Mr. Chair is simply more appropriate. Not really. The title can remain Chairman, but you can simply refer to the holder of the position as "Madame Chairperson" if the lady in the position objects. The title may be the formal title, but informally is another thing altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:33 PM Report Share Posted July 16, 2014 at 11:33 PM I interpret this to mean no "new" word changes can be made. I think that's an excessively restrictive interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:06 AM Under Amendments of Constitutions, RONR says that "no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended". I interpret this to mean no "new" word changes can be made. Existing changes contain within the original motion may be further revised, but wholly new ones, can not be added. What do you folks think? I think that if the scope of the amendment is a wholesale change of titles to gender neutral, that adding a change of chairman to chair remains within that scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 17, 2014 at 11:49 AM Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 at 11:49 AM I don't see why not. But I also don't see the point in the first place. "Madame Chairman" is perfectly acceptable language. Just please don't change "penmanship" to "penwomanship". I tend to agree. The word "man" originated from a word that referred to the human race, whereas the word "woman" originated from the word for wife and the word for the human race. Essentially, "wife" + "man". As such, the word "Chairman" is gender neutral, just as "penmanship" is gender neutral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Ralph Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM Report Share Posted July 17, 2014 at 12:01 PM The whole amendment is pointless.If you feel you must bow to political correctness, insert in a preamble, interpretation/definition article, or at the very end, verbiage such as "the masculine gender shall be considered to include the feminine and vice-versa". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennycowles Posted July 18, 2014 at 05:37 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 at 05:37 AM Chair works as well as Chairman and it's 3 less characters. This is not PC, if anything it's a bow to being equally respectful, which is a founding principle of Roberts Rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 18, 2014 at 09:22 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 at 09:22 AM Under Amendments of Constitutions, RONR says that "no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended". ... lennycowles, I'll agree that this is a fine, if flawed, sentiment; but, do you have a citation for this quotation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 at 11:36 AM lennycowles, I'll agree that this is a fine, if flawed, sentiment; but, do you have a citation for this quotation? Under Amendments of Constitutions, RONR says that "no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended". I interpret this to mean no "new" word changes can be made. Existing changes contain within the original motion may be further revised, but wholly new ones, can not be added. What do you folks think? That is from page 595, ll. 3-8. which deals with amendments to the motion to amend the bylaws if notice has been given, etc. I think that if notice is given that the intent of the changes are to make the bylaws gender neutral but they left out something in the changes listed, amending the motion to include those things left out but meet the intent would not be going beyond the notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM Report Share Posted July 18, 2014 at 12:12 PM Under Amendments of Constitutions, RONR says that "no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended". I interpret this to mean no "new" word changes can be made. Existing changes contain within the original motion may be further revised, but wholly new ones, can not be added. What do you folks think? First of all, when quoting it is best to quote accurately. What is said on page 595 is: "If the bylaws require previous notice for their amendment (as they should), or if they do not but notice has been given and a majority of the entire membership is not present, no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or provision to be amended (see Standard Characteristic 6, p. 306)." The information provided in post #6 concerning the notice which was given is not clear enough to answer the question asked. If the only notice given was a set of strike-out and insertions, then I think that the answer to the question asked in post #6 is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 at 12:33 PM lennycowles, I'll agree that this is a fine, if flawed, sentiment; but, do you have a citation for this quotation?That is from page 595, ll. 3-8.... Mr. Fish, as "Gary c Tesser" said, it's a fine sentiment. But Mr. Cowles used quotation marks, so we were looking to get the source of his quotation. Which, as Mr. Honemann pointed out, p. 595, lines 3 - 8, is not. OF course, it might be that Mr. Cowles intended a paraphrase of p. 595, which his rendering in post 10 indeed faintly resembles; and he might have been intending to use quasi-quotes to show this. But quasi-quotes are out of vogue (easy to do with a typewriter, superimposing a hyphen under the open- and close-quotation marks, but tricky for basic computer users), so I can suppose a lapse on his part. For that matter, I kinda agree, as apparently does Member Guest* in post 8 and frequently elsewhere, about "Madam Chairman". (Post 14 misses the point, but its a common error.)______*I'm waiting for some wag to register here as "Guest". And then to forget his password and have to post as the new real, one-and-only, Guest_Guest, unless the website registers him or her as Guest_"Guest"_Guest and explodes the Internet for three days like Dr. Seabold did last time about Reconsider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted July 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 at 12:52 PM ______*I'm waiting for some wag to register here as "Guest". And then to forget his password and have to post as the new real, one-and-only, Guest_Guest, unless the website registers him or her as Guest_"Guest"_Guest and explodes the Internet for three days like Dr. Seabold did last time about Reconsider. The pseudo-guest Edgar Guest appears to have guessed how to do so. You might register as his pseudo-significant other Nancy N. Guest. But bear in mind Dorothy Parker's assertion: "I'd rather flunk my Wasserman test / Than read the poetry of Edgar Guest". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 19, 2014 at 01:13 PM Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 at 01:13 PM Mr. Fish, as "Gary c Tesser" said, it's a fine sentiment. But Mr. Cowles used quotation marks, so we were looking to get the source of his quotation. Which, as Mr. Honemann pointed out, p. 595, lines 3 - 8, is not. lennycowles: "no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the rule to be amended"RONR pg 595: "no amendment to a bylaw amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or provision to be amended." I agree his quoting skills appear to be lacking, but no English professor would take issue if he'd written it as:"no amendment...is in order that increases the modification of the [rule] to be amended." Perhaps he needs to buy a copy of The Chicago Manual of Style to go along with his copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, but it seems pretty clear that that is what he was quoting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 19, 2014 at 01:52 PM Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 at 01:52 PM I didn't learn from "no English professor", nor from the Chicago Manual, or any other, what a quotation is, when I was 8 or 11 or so; did you? ... but it seems pretty clear that that is what he was quoting. No, it was what he was almost quoting. But OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 19, 2014 at 04:39 PM Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 at 04:39 PM I didn't learn from "no English professor", nor from the Chicago Manual, or any other, what a quotation is, when I was 8 or 11 or so; did you? No, it was what he was almost quoting. But OK.Not sure why I even bothered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 19, 2014 at 08:05 PM Report Share Posted July 19, 2014 at 08:05 PM Not sure why I even bothered. Nancy is always a few steps ahead of most of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.