Sequencing Motions

[woboot100]

Very strange set of events today as I chaired a meeting of some size. There was an extended debate and a member in the back of the auditorium suggested a series of changes to simplify a motion that had become, in her judgment, overly complex. Things then got odd. She suddenly, apparently in exasperation, motioned to table the main motion. There was a pause and about 2/3rds of the members turned to look at her. A few seconds later, a hubbub broke out. No one, however, seconded the motion to table. Over the hubbub, about four to eight seconds after the noise started and before I could bring the assembly to order, a person sharply to my left raised her voice over the noise and made a motion to amend the main motion. The amendment was immediately seconded by someone to my sharp right. I started to repeat the amendment. My parliamentarian then raised his voice and said the motion to table was still on the floor and had been seconded. (It was not a misuse of the "table" motion; we would be derelict not to pass something like the main motion so it would have come off the table at some point.) I apologized, said I had not heard the second, and put the motion to table before the assembly. It passed by a wide margin. Then, before I could go to the next item, a member to my sharp right called for the floor. I asked for what. She then moved to place before the assembly the amendment which I had set aside in light of the table motion. And said that it would suffice to answer the imperative the assembly was facing. I told her I needed a motion to amend the agenda. She so motioned and the motion to amend the agenda was seconded. Things progressed on from there and the amendment was eventually adopted. BUT: I walked over after the meeting and thanked the member who had made the motion to amend the agenda for getting us out of a jam. The person sitting next to her then told me that the second to the table motion had come AFTER the motion to amend and the second to the motion to amend. Somewhat later, the person who had seconded the motion to table came over and told me that he had made the second AFTER the motion to amend. Which, since the motion to amend had been seconded, probably meant that his second had come after the second to the motion to amend. How many errors were committed here?

[Edgar Guest]

How many errors were committed here?

 

Well, the most obvious error is the failure to create paragraphs.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

 

She [...] motioned to table the main motion.

No one, however, seconded the motion to table.

. . .

a person [...] made a motion to amend the main motion.

The amendment was immediately seconded [...]

I started to repeat the amendment.

 

My parliamentarian then raised his voice and said

the motion to table was still on the floor and had been seconded.

...

I apologized, said I had not heard the second,

and put the motion to table before the assembly.

It [motion to LAY ON THE TABLE] passed . . .

 

Then, before I could go to the next item, a member to my sharp right called for the floor.

She then moved to place before the assembly the amendment which I had set aside in light of the table motion.

And said that it would suffice to answer the imperative the assembly was facing.

 

I told her I needed a motion to amend the agenda.

She so motioned and the motion to amend the agenda was seconded.

. . . and the amendment was eventually adopted.

 

I walked over after the meeting and thanked the member who had made the motion to amend the agenda for getting us out of a jam.

 

The person sitting next to her then told me that the second to the table motion had come AFTER the motion to amend and the second to the motion to amend.

 

Somewhat later, the person who had seconded the motion to table came over and told me that he had made the second AFTER the motion to amend.

 

Which, since the motion to amend had been seconded, probably meant that his second had come after the second to the motion to amend.

 

How many errors were committed here?

i want to know WHY -- why was the agenda in need of amendment?

 

What was wrong with the agenda as it was?

And, why did it "get you out of a jam"?

 

***

 

Oh, just to muddy the waters . . .

 

Once a main motion is Laid On The Table, you cannot directly amend it, yet.

You must first Take From The Table the main motion, and then you will be in a posiiton to amend it. (I hope.)

 

****

 

And said that it would suffice to answer the imperative the assembly was facing.

 

And this is a most mysterious phraseology!

 

***

 

I don't know how many errors where committed.

 

I don't know how the pieces fit together.

 

I don't know how amending an agenda fixed ____:

(a.) the missing second;

(b.) the un-tabling of that which was to be amended.

[Edgar Guest]

Oh, just to muddy the waters . . .

 

And this is helpful . . . how?

[Josh Martin]

 

A few seconds later, a hubbub broke out. 

 

That's one. Members need to seek recognition to speak in debate, so a "hubbub" is most certainly not in order.

 

a person sharply to my left raised her voice over the noise and made a motion to amend the main motion. The amendment was immediately seconded by someone to my sharp right.

 

That's two. Even if the motion to Lay on the Table was not seconded (this seems to be a point of dispute), you as chair had not yet declared the motion to Lay on the Table dead for lack of a second, so it was not appropriate for a member to make a motion to Amend.

 

My parliamentarian then raised his voice and said the motion to table was still on the floor and had been seconded.

 

That's three. The parliamentarian should have whispered this to you. The parliamentarian should not address the assembly directly unless requested to do so by the presiding officer.

 

She then moved to place before the assembly the amendment which I had set aside in light of the table motion.

 

That's four. A motion which conflicts with a motion which has been temporarily disposed of (such as a motion which is laid on the table) is not in order. (If the motion was indeed made as a motion to Amend the motion on the table rather than being reframed as a main motion, that's another one.)

 

I told her I needed a motion to amend the agenda.

 

This might be another one. It depends on where the assembly was in the agenda. If you were in New Business, no motion to amend the agenda was necessary. Otherwise, I suppose it would be.

 

BUT: I walked over after the meeting and thanked the member who had made the motion to amend the agenda for getting us out of a jam. The person sitting next to her then told me that the second to the table motion had come AFTER the motion to amend and the second to the motion to amend. Somewhat later, the person who had seconded the motion to table came over and told me that he had made the second AFTER the motion to amend. Which, since the motion to amend had been seconded, probably meant that his second had come after the second to the motion to amend.

 

This is all irrelevant. As I noted previously, the motion to Amend was not in order at the time, because the motion to Lay on the Table had not yet been dealt with. In any event, it's much too late to raise a Point of Order regarding the lack of a second (or an untimely second) at this point.

 

How many errors were committed here?

 

It probably depends a bit on how you count them, but I got four to six.

 

It is too late to raise a Point of Order about any of them.

[woboot100]

You can see why this was difficult. First, the sudden hubbub of voices was not a situation where I had any control. It was short-lived. Perhaps fifteen seconds. There was no attempt to amend anything that was on the table and certainly no attempt to amend the motion to lay on the table (which is, of course, impossible). As to whether the agenda had to be amended, we were in Old Business and I deemed it proper to require the motion to amend the agenda. There seems to be some confusion above about that amendment and it appears that I am not explaining it well. Once the motion to lay on the table passed the next motion sought to revive the amendment as a main motion. Since we were between two motions in Old Business, it appears to me that once the motion was raised properly through amending the agenda, there was no problem with it becoming the main motion. 

[woboot100]

And, goodness, I have no interest at all in a Point of Order.  As it worked out, however clumsily, the will of the assembly WAS carried out and people got what they wanted. As to the Parliamentarian not asking for a moment to speak to me . . . that, unfortunately, is not the first action he has undertaken which falls fairly far outside of standard practice. And he he used to be an instructor in Parliamentary Procedure. Something is amiss I fear . . . . .

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Kim Goldsworthy and Josh Martin.

 

As to the parliamentarian shouting rather than whispering in your ear, was he in close enough proximity to you to whisper?  If he was, then yes, he should have whispered.  But, his statement that the motion to amend was not in order because of the pending motion to lay on the table was correct.  For various reasons, the "late second" to the motion to lay on the table is water under the bridge because no point of order was made at the time. 

 

You lost me with the amendment to the motion that had been laid on the table.  A motion that has been laid on the table cannot be amended until it is first taken from the table.  I haven't seen anything indicating that the motion was first taken from the table before being amended.

 

I see no need to have amended the agenda, although I suppose doing so was permissible.  If you believe you were at the wrong place in the agenda to take a matter up, someone could have moved to suspend the rules to take the matter up right then.  You could also have asked permission to do so by unanimous consent.

 

You were in a difficult and fast moving situation and it is easy for things to spin out of control when that happens. 

[woboot100]

Thanks everyone. Great input.

[Josh Martin]

As to whether the agenda had to be amended, we were in Old Business and I deemed it proper to require the motion to amend the agenda.

Yes, if the assembly was in Unfinished Business (not "Old Business"), a motion to amend the agenda or to Suspend the Rules would be necessary to take up an item of New Business.

You lost me with the amendment to the motion that had been laid on the table.  A motion that has been laid on the table cannot be amended until it is first taken from the table.  I haven't seen anything indicating that the motion was first taken from the table before being amended.

The OP seems to have clarified that the amendment was reframed as a main motion in its own right, but as I noted above, this was still out of order because it conflicted with the motion laid on the table.

[Guest Woboot100]

Yes, if the assembly was in Unfinished Business (not "Old Business"), a motion to amend the agenda or to Suspend the Rules would be necessary to take up an item of New Business.

The OP seems to have clarified that the amendment was reframed as a main motion in its own right, but as I noted above, this was still out of order because it conflicted with the motion laid on the table.

The second item you cite is a very good point and quite obvious. And, to be truthful, did not occur to me. We had to pass something on the topic for a variety of legal and ethical reasons and when the motion to lay the first main motion on the table was made, I was already thinking in practical political terms about who had enough sway in the assembly to get it off the table at the next meeting. Then when the amendment was made into a main motion (albeit as new business) I was so relieved that I never gave the conflict between the two any thought. And, of course, it will never be removed from the table unless there is a good parliamentary reason to do so in order to bring an end to the whole matter. I am assuming that when we adjourn sine die sometime this summer, it will just die then.

[Josh Martin]

I am assuming that when we adjourn sine die sometime this summer, it will just die then.

It will die quite a bit sooner than that. A motion which is laid on the table dies at the end of the same meeting (if the next meeting is more than a quarterly interval away) or at the end of the next meeting (if the next meeting is within a quarterly interval) if it is not taken from the table before that time.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Perhaps the biggest mistake was paying any attention to motions that were shouted out by members who had not obtained the floor. There are a few procedural motions that can be made that way, but main motions, motions to Amend, and motions to Lay on the Table are not among them.

[woboot100]

It will die quite a bit sooner than that. A motion which is laid on the table dies at the end of the same meeting (if the next meeting is more than a quarterly interval away) or at the end of the next meeting (if the next meeting is within a quarterly interval) if it is not taken from the table before that time.

Great (!) and thank all of you.