Conflict in the implementation date of a Motion

[Deb Parm]

We are anticipating a conflict at an upcoming meeting.  This is what we think will happen.

There will be a motion (and second) for a change to job duties to go into effect on 4/1/2018.  During the discussion, we think another member will make a motion (and get a second) for the date to be 4/1/2019.  I am pretty sure the maker of the original motion will not agree to modify her motion.    This is been an ongoing dispute.  So, I want to make sure we handle it correctly.  How do we handle this situation?

[jstackpo]

Treat the 2019 option as an amendment to the main motion.

Here's what the amendment should be:

"I move to amend the main motion by striking out "2018" and inserting "2019".  [second]

Then you discuss, and eventually vote on accepting the amendment (or not) by a majority vote. The debate, at this point, deals exclusively with the date change.

The same amendment process can be used to change the job duties in whole or in part, too.

After that, you (further) discuss any portion of the main motion (the job duties, &c.) and vote to adopt, or defeat, the main motion, as possibly amended.

The mover of the original (2018) main motion cannot prevent the amendment from changing the main motion, other than by arguing against the amendment, and voting against it.  But majority still makes the decision.  Majority resolves the "dispute".

[Dan Honemann]

Regardless of whether or not the maker of the original motion agrees to the amendment, the proposed amendment must be dealt with just the same as any proposed amendment to a main motion.

The maker of the original motion has no say in the matter, other than by arguing against the amendment and voting against it, just as Dr. Stackpole said. 

Edited March 10, 2018 at 02:49 PM by Daniel H. Honemann
Added the last part of he last sentence because he said it better than I did.