Decorum in Debate

[Grant B.]

Are all of the topics discussed in Decorum in Debate (RONR, 11th ed., p. 391-94) rules and can they be enforced?

I am confused because the section begins with "The following practices and customs observed by speakers" which implies to me that they are mostly guidelines and not enforceable rules. Yet the wording used in the individual topics can be quite strong and "REFRAINING FROM DISTURBING THE ASSEMBLY" says "This rule" and discusses the feasibility of enforcement on page 394.

More specifically, I am curious about "REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION" on page 393. Would it be out of order for the maker of a motion to argue against the motion as amended after an amendment was adopted that the maker disagreed with? Could that be enforced by the chair and can a point of order be made? As a rule it would stand out to me as possibly being too restrictive on the rights of a member considering that by the time of debate the motion technically "belongs" more to the assembly than the maker of the motion.

[Joshua Katz]

They are enforceable rules, but the specific situation you asked about does not violate those rules.  It is out of order to speak against your own motion in debate.  However, when it has been amended (say, by striking "censor" and inserting "commend") it is no longer your motion.

Your final point, though (the motion belongs to the assembly) is just as true if it isn't amended, so I think you're also asking why you can't debate against your own motion when it hasn't been amended.  The way I see it, it's really a rule against wasting the assembly's time by making a motion you don't think should be adopted.  (Of course, you might be convinced in debate that it's a bad idea, but in that case, a persuasive case against it has already been made, so why do you need to chime in?)

[J. J.]

I will disagree a bit.  While a member may ask permission to withdraw a main motion he made, after that main motion has been amended, he cannot speak against it (p. 393, ll. 23-26).  This would be true even if the main motion is amended is such a way to change the intent of the motion, e.g., to strike out "censure" and insert "commend."

The member may speak against the amendment, when it is pending, and could even indicate that, if the amendment is adopted, he would vote against the main motion.  He could move to suspend the rules to permit him to speak against the main motion, after it is amended.

[Ann Rempel]

12 hours ago, J. J. said:

I will disagree a bit.  While a member may ask permission to withdraw a main motion he made, after that main motion has been amended, he cannot speak against it (p. 393, ll. 23-26).  This would be true even if the main motion is amended is such a way to change the intent of the motion, e.g., to strike out "censure" and insert "commend."

The member may speak against the amendment, when it is pending, and could even indicate that, if the amendment is adopted, he would vote against the main motion.  He could move to suspend the rules to permit him to speak against the main motion, after it is amended.

I fail to see the logic in this argument. After a motion is amended, it is no longer the motion proposed by the maker. Seems to me that it is every member's right to speak against the amended main motion so long as he or she isn't the member who moved the amendment. I have always thought that logic prevails in the General's writings and continues in RONR. 

[George Mervosh]

51 minutes ago, Ann Rempel said:

I fail to see the logic in this argument. After a motion is amended, it is no longer the motion proposed by the maker. Seems to me that it is every member's right to speak against the amended main motion so long as he or she isn't the member who moved the amendment. I have always thought that logic prevails in the General's writings and continues in RONR. 

J.J.'s extreme example in his first paragraph makes it fairly clear that the motion, as amended, to commend is not "his own motion", in my opinion, as it has been so materially amended it's almost not event the same question.  Other amendments (and I'm lousy at examples on the fly) if adopted may very well still leave the amended motion as his own. So I don't think the fact it was amended becomes a dividing line, it's to what degree was it amended?   I agree with Ms. Rempel that a little common sense needs to carry the day.

Edited October 27, 2017 at 08:21 PM by George Mervosh
Spelling

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Ann Rempel said:

I fail to see the logic in this argument. After a motion is amended, it is no longer the motion proposed by the maker. Seems to me that it is every member's right to speak against the amended main motion so long as he or she isn't the member who moved the amendment. I have always thought that logic prevails in the General's writings and continues in RONR. 

I was of the same opinion as J.J. regarding an amended main motion.  It never made a lot of sense to me, but I've learned that I often don't know as much as I thought I did before checking in here.  In any case,  it wouldn't take much to convince me to jump the fence on this one, and I think you've supplied that.  Thanks.

[J. J.]

On 10/27/2017 at 3:29 PM, Ann Rempel said:

I fail to see the logic in this argument. After a motion is amended, it is no longer the motion proposed by the maker. Seems to me that it is every member's right to speak against the amended main motion so long as he or she isn't the member who moved the amendment. I have always thought that logic prevails in the General's writings and continues in RONR. 

The logic is that the maker of the initial main motion:

A.  Can argue against the proposed amendment.

B.  Can request permission to withdraw the motion, even after it has been amended.

Doing either one will let his feelings be known.

Now, even after amendment, the maker of the initial main motion can ask to withdraw the now amended motion.