Amending to a Certain Amount Being Out of Order

[parkourninja]

For motions that require previous notice, I know that an amendment to the amendment cannot exceed the scope of the previous notice. 

 

However, is it out of order to ever amend a certain amount of money to a different amount if the motion requires no previous notice (i.e. a main motion). For example, for the main motion to donate $100 to charity, would is be out of order to strike out $100 and insert $500,000 or some other amount that is very different than the original amount?

[Edgar Guest]

No.

[Transpower]

You could amend the motion for any amount between $0 and $100--this would be within the scope of the notice of a $100 donation.

.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . this would be within the scope of the notice of a $100 donation..

 

 . . . the motion requires no previous notice . . . 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Guest that if the motion does not require previous notice, then there is no "scope of the notice" and any amendment is in order unless prohibited for some other reason.

[Shmuel Gerber]

For motions that require previous notice, I know that an amendment to the amendment cannot exceed the scope of the previous notice. 

 

However, is it out of order to ever amend a certain amount of money to a different amount if the motion requires no previous notice (i.e. a main motion). For example, for the main motion to donate $100 to charity, would is be out of order to strike out $100 and insert $500,000 or some other amount that is very different than the original amount?

 

 

No.

 

It's never out of order to amend a certain amount of money to a different amount if the motion requires no previous notice?

I would not be brave enough to make such a categorical statement.

[Shmuel Gerber]

For motions that require previous notice, I know that an amendment to the amendment cannot exceed the scope of the previous notice. 

 

However, is it out of order to ever amend a certain amount of money to a different amount if the motion requires no previous notice (i.e. a main motion). For example, for the main motion to donate $100 to charity, would is be out of order to strike out $100 and insert $500,000 or some other amount that is very different than the original amount?

 

There are a couple of points about this question that need to be cleared up, aside from the basic point of your question about amending amounts of money.

 

You say, "For motions that require previous notice, I know that an amendment to the amendment cannot exceed the scope of the previous notice." What do you mean by "an amendment to the amendment"? The term "motion that requires previous notice" is not synonymous with "amendment of something previously adopted." In fact, it is entirely possible for a motion other than an amendment of something previously adopted to require previous notice.

 

Furthermore, in the ordinary case of amendments to something previously adopted, previous notice is not required (in the sense that the amendment couldn't be adopted without the notice), but such notice merely serves to lessen the vote required. In such instances, where previous notice is not absolutely required, amendments to the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted remain in order. See page 307, line 28 to page 308, line 10.

 

You also ask about ". . . if the motion requires no previous notice (i.e. a main motion)." But the motions that require previous notice are almost always main motions. A motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is a main motion.

 

Now, to your question: So long as the amendment to strike out one amount and insert another is germane to the main motion, and it is not frivolous, and it would not cause the question as amended to be out of order, then the amendment is in order (or at least it is not out of order on the grounds that the new amount is very different than the original amount). But note that even if the original motion did not require any previous notice, if the motion as amended would require such notice (and no notice has been given), then the amendment is not in order. For example, if the new amount would exceed a previously adopted budget, and if the society has a rule forbidding expenditures that exceed the budget unless previous notice is given of the motion that would authorize the excess expenditure, then the amendment is not in order.

[Edgar Guest]

It's never out of order to amend a certain amount of money to a different amount if the motion requires no previous notice?

I would not be brave enough to make such a categorical statement.

 

Perhaps I was more rash than brave.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Perhaps I was more rash than brave.

 

Well, I may have misread the question, which was "is it out of order to ever amend," so maybe the OP was asking whether it's ever in order, not whether it's never in order. (Either way, I think the question has now been answered.)

[Transpower]

If it's just a main motion with no previous notice, you could use fill in the blank for the dollar amount.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 162, ll. 23-30.

[Edgar Guest]

If it's just a main motion with no previous notice, you could use fill in the blank for the dollar amount.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 162, ll. 23-30.

 

The question is whether the blank could be filled with any dollar amount.

[Transpower]

If there's no previous notice and if this is not an amendment to a bylaws amendment, then any dollar amount could be specified in the blank.

[Edgar Guest]

If there's no previous notice and if this is not an amendment to a bylaws amendment, then any dollar amount could be specified in the blank.

 

But note that even if the original motion did not require any previous notice, if the motion as amended would require such notice (and no notice has been given), then the amendment is not in order. For example, if the new amount would exceed a previously adopted budget, and if the society has a rule forbidding expenditures that exceed the budget unless previous notice is given of the motion that would authorize the excess expenditure, then the amendment is not in order.