Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
parkourninja

Stating the Wording of the Main Motion When Stating the Question on a Secondary Amendment

Recommended Posts

On page 144 of RONR 11ed. an example of the chair stating the question on a pending amendment is giving as "if the word is inserted, the primary amendment will be, "to add the resolution for the purchase of the property..."". It refers to the main motion as a resolution "for the purchase of the property" without stating the main motion in its exact words. Therefore, is it OK to do so when stating the question on a secondary amendment or a primary amendment for that matter.

 

Also, is it necessary to use the words on page 155 beginning with "it should be noted..." or can the motion be put without that added note on the motion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the example you cite (p 144) as the difference between stating the question when it is pending, and referring to the main motion that is not currently pending when an amendment is currently pending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important thing, by far, is that the chair make it absolutely clear to members what it is that they are voting on. In particularly complex situations where there are many motions pending, depending on the skill and attention of the members, it may be fine for the chair only to state the immediately pending question, or they may well need to state the entire stack of motions. It may also depend on what aids are available---after a main motion has been amended several times, if there is not an easily available copy of the main motion as it stands (say, on a projector screen), then it may be required to repeat the main motion more frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2017 at 3:46 PM, parkourninja said:

On page 144 of RONR 11ed. an example of the chair stating the question on a pending amendment is giving as "if the word is inserted, the primary amendment will be, "to add the resolution for the purchase of the property..."". It refers to the main motion as a resolution "for the purchase of the property" without stating the main motion in its exact words. Therefore, is it OK to do so when stating the question on a secondary amendment or a primary amendment for that matter.

You're asking if it's OK to follow the example as given in RONR? Yes, it's OK to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...