Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
DR Stockley

Who may propose amendments to a main motion?

Recommended Posts

My organization has recently switched from Demeter's to Robert's Rules of Order as the official Parliamentary Authority.  Unfortunately, I was not familiar enough with RONR at our last meeting when it was stated that according to RONR that only the maker of the main motion or the person that seconded it was permitted to offer an amendment to it.  Needless to say, this didn't strike me as possibly being correct.  I immediately purchased the "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition" and have been studying it, but have not found anywhere that indicates that to be the case.  If one of you more knowledgeable forum members could advise me of it is true that the only ones allowed to offer an amendment to a main motion is the ones that originally made the motion or seconded it and where I can find that in RONR, I be extremely grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I remember from long past reading, it's not true for Demeter either.

Ask the person who did the stating where he go that "rule".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DR Stockley said:

My organization has recently switched from Demeter's to Robert's Rules of Order as the official Parliamentary Authority.  Unfortunately, I was not familiar enough with RONR at our last meeting when it was stated that according to RONR that only the maker of the main motion or the person that seconded it was permitted to offer an amendment to it.  Needless to say, this didn't strike me as possibly being correct.  I immediately purchased the "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition" and have been studying it, but have not found anywhere that indicates that to be the case.  If one of you more knowledgeable forum members could advise me of it is true that the only ones allowed to offer an amendment to a main motion is the ones that originally made the motion or seconded it and where I can find that in RONR, I be extremely grateful.

This assertion is so outlandish that I'm led to believe that whoever made it was referring to modification (not amendment) of a motion. As to modification of motions, take a look at pages 295-98.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Who's Coming to Dinner

There is a common mistaken notion that a motion belongs to its maker. This is where we get "friendly amendment" and the more extreme version posed by Dr Stockley. On the contrary, a motion belongs to the assembly once it is stated by the chair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreeing with the others, that supposed "rule" is not in RONR because there is no such rule. Any member may propose amendments. Ask those who are claiming there is such a rule to show it to you.

Edited by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your replies and advice.  While I knew that it seemed to go against rational thought, I was at a disadvantage not having even been informed of the switch from Demeter's until that moment.  Of course, I have since obtained a copy of RONR, along with the latest version of the National By-Laws which instituted the change as I want to be well prepared for our next monthly meeting.  Thank you all again.

By the way, I was aware that it wasn't a rule in Demeter's but I was caught off-guard by not being aware of the change in the Parliamentary Authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, DR Stockley said:

Thank you all for your replies and advice.  While I knew that it seemed to go against rational thought, I was at a disadvantage not having even been informed of the switch from Demeter's until that moment.  Of course, I have since obtained a copy of RONR, along with the latest version of the National By-Laws which instituted the change as I want to be well prepared for our next monthly meeting.  Thank you all again.

 

The easy solution, when faced with that situation (and even though you have it, you're not going to read and memorize all of it, and even if you did people would still make false claims) is to say "oh, I didn't know that.  Can you show me what page it is on?"

 

6 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

There is a common mistaken notion that a motion belongs to its maker. This is where we get "friendly amendment" and the more extreme version posed by Dr Stockley. On the contrary, a motion belongs to the assembly once it is stated by the chair.

I agree.  Have you seen this particular misconception before?  I come across "friendly amendments" all the time, of course (which do exist in some rule sets), but not this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Have you seen this particular misconception before?

It doesn't show up directly very often; it's the central misconception behind several related problems.

The idea of a mover unilaterally withdrawing or amending their motion is based on this misconception. So is the aforementioned "friendly amendment". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So my understanding is that any member in good standing, once he has the floor, may offer an amendment to a main motion once it has been stated by the chair and is pending before the membership present is correct.  Thank you all again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DR Stockley said:

So my understanding is that any member in good standing, once he has the floor, may offer an amendment to a main motion once it has been stated by the chair and is pending before the membership present is correct.  Thank you all again.

 

8 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Your understanding is correct. 

 

Except that good standing may not be required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

 

Except that good standing may not be required.

You are undoubtedly correct.  For if a member is not in good standing he would not be able to attend the meetings under our By-Laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, DR Stockley said:

You are undoubtedly correct.  For if a member is not in good standing he would not be able to attend the meetings under our By-Laws.

That makes sense, I just wanted to point out that, for instance, unpaid dues do not mean the person can't attend and vote, unless (as you note) your bylaws create such a disqualification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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...

×