amended motions

[Guest richard sollitto]

A main motion is made and seconded

 

a motion to amend the motion is made and seconded

 

the amendment is voted on and passed

 

when the chair calls for a motion on the amended motion instead of calling for a vote on the motion as amended he calls for a vote on the "original Motion"

 

section 12 of the 10th edition states when referring to a motion to amend that  "...its adoption does not adopt the motion thereby amended; that motion remains pending in its modified form"

 

does the chairs calling for a vote on the "original motion" mean that the original motion is adopted "in its modified form" (including g the adopted amendment) or does it ignore the amendment and mean that only the original motion is adopted?

 

thanks for your opinions.

[Transpower]

The chair made an error.  He should have called for debate on the motion as amended, and then a vote.

[Josh Martin]

A main motion is made and seconded

 

a motion to amend the motion is made and seconded

 

the amendment is voted on and passed

 

when the chair calls for a motion on the amended motion instead of calling for a vote on the motion as amended he calls for a vote on the "original Motion"

 

section 12 of the 10th edition states when referring to a motion to amend that  "...its adoption does not adopt the motion thereby amended; that motion remains pending in its modified form"

 

does the chairs calling for a vote on the "original motion" mean that the original motion is adopted "in its modified form" (including g the adopted amendment) or does it ignore the amendment and mean that only the original motion is adopted?

The original motion is adopted. While I concur with my colleague that the chair was clearly in error, the wording used by the chair when he puts the question on the motion is the definitive wording for the adopted motion. A Point of Order should have been raised at the time. Since this did not occur, it will now be necessary to use a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted if it is still desired to change the motion.

[Guest Richard sollitto]

So if no motion to amend something previously adopted is introduced the main motion is approved without the ammendmeny. Correct?

What about the language in section 12 that says that once an amendment is made the main motion exists in modified form

[Guest Richard sollitto]

To the gentlman who noted the chairs error....i agree but the question is what passed

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It may be helpful to get the current 11th edition. 

 

Here's the citation:

 

"If the chair's wording of the question is erroneous, a point of order may be made until any member has actually voted. Except as it may be corrected in response to such a point of order, the exact wording the chair uses in putting the question is definitive, and the wording in the minutes should be the same." (RONR 11th ed., p. 44, ll. 19-24)

[Transpower]

So if no point of order is raised, the original motion as stated by the chair is what is adopted, not the amended motion.  If that really is the case, one could amend that motion at the next meeting.  Or, perhaps the chair could say, "Without objection, the motion adopted at the previous meeting, as amended, is what was actually adopted."  The minutes would then be amended, as well. Clearly, the chair (at the previous meeting) needed to have a parliamentarian!

[Dan Honemann]

Or, perhaps the chair could say, "Without objection, the motion adopted at the previous meeting, as amended, is what was actually adopted."  The minutes would then be amended, as well. Clearly, the chair (at the previous meeting) needed to have a parliamentarian!

 

I very much doubt that trying to rewrite history is a proper solution to the problem. 

[Gary Novosielski]

As I understand the question, the chair may not have called for a vote on the original motion, restating it improperly in its original form. As I read it, it appears that the chair called for a vote on "the original motion", referring to it in those words without restating it in full.  But If that's not the case, the following will not apply:

 

 

It is entirely possible that the chair intended, and the assembly understood, that the vote was on the main motion just amended, as distinguished from the amendment itself.  

 

I have seen (too often) a somewhat sloppy chair say something like:  "Okay the amendment passes, so now we have to vote on the original motion; those in favor...."  Bad procedure, to be sure, but if everyone understood that by the "original motion" the chair meant "the main motion"  (which had just been amended)  then I'd say that's what actually passed.

 

Although RONR requires the chair to restate the motion verbatim prior to the vote, in real life, that rule is honored more in the breach than in the observance.