Changes to motion after notice is given

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If (as I believe to be the case), under the rules in RONR a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is permitted to make a different motion so long as it falls within the scope of the notice given, this can in no way violate the rights of absentees anymore than does the rule which allows subsidiary amendments to be made so long as they make no change going beyond the scope of the notice given.

 

I agree.

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 In other words, although it may be that I'm wrong (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that I'm not) and that, under the rules in RONR, a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is not permitted to make a different motion even if it falls within the scope of the notice given, the rights of absentees have got nothing at all to do with it. 

 

I fail to see how this can be characterized as the same statement in different words. 

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In other words, although it may be that I'm wrong (although I'm becoming more and more convinced that I'm not) and that, under the rules in RONR, a member who gave notice of his intent to make a motion to amend something previously adopted is not permitted to make a different motion even if it falls within the scope of the notice given, the rights of absentees have got nothing at all to do with it. 

 

 

I disagree, based on the wording at least, and based on your example.

A member, Mary, gives notice to amend a special rule that authorizes standing committees by striking out the sections that authorize standing committees D and E, i.e. Sections D and E.  I would see no problem  with Mary moving to strike out Section D and not mentioning Section E.  That would not prevent another member, once Mary's motion is disposed of, from moving to strike out Section E.

If the assembly wants to consider both in one motion, and Mary won't modify hers, the rules could be suspended to consider striking out sections D and E in one motion.   

The reverse is correct.  Mary could move to strike out sections D and E and the question could be divided.

Also, what if Mary does not make the motion, Sally does?  Mary is not there or Sally and Mary want Sally to make the motion.  I don't know of any rule that says the person who gave notice must be the one to move the motion.

 

[Guest Student]

I think people may be getting confused by Mr. Honemann's phrasing which, after careful reading I took to mean 

"It may be that I'm wrong and" [statement of what he thinks is the INcorrect interpretation] "(but I'm getting more certain that I am correct and that interpretation is wrong)"

In other words, I agree with JJ's example and think it is in accordance with Mr. Honemann's posts.

Or I might be completely out to lunch.

[Joshua Katz]

16 minutes ago, Guest Student said:

Or I might be completely out to lunch.

No, I think you're exactly right.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 minutes ago, Guest Student said:

I think people may be getting confused by Mr. Honemann's phrasing which, after careful reading I took to mean 

"It may be that I'm wrong and" [statement of what he thinks is the INcorrect interpretation] "(but I'm getting more certain that I am correct and that interpretation is wrong)"

In other words, I agree with JJ's example and think it is in accordance with Mr. Honemann's posts.

Or I might be completely out to lunch.

I had to read it twice, too.  And I concur that Mr. Honemann was not arguing that he was wrong, but rather that he was not.  

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

Maybe y'all need to start a new thread in which you can argue about what Dan Honemann really meant. Of course, this being an exercise in literary analysis, Mr. Honemann's own views of the matter will be irrelevant. 

Now I shall proceed to explain: What he said was that if he was wrong (which he wasn't), the rights of absentees have got nothing at all to do with it. [Which, when you think about it, is an obvious statement, because how on earth could the rights of absentees have anything to do with Dan being wrong, which he never is, eh?]

[Guest Zev]

I will just stay with the original subject.

Would it not be proper once the motion to strike sections D and E is moved, to move to divide the question and then offer a substitute to the strike motion so-as to modify section D in any way whatsoever, perhaps more acceptable, and then offer another substitute to section E? It seems to me that anything short of striking out the two sections is permissible. Or is striking out an "all-or-nothing" proposition?

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

 

Would it not be proper once the motion to strike sections D and E is moved, to move to divide the question and then offer a substitute to the strike motion so-as to modify section D in any way whatsoever, perhaps more acceptable, and then offer another substitute to section E? It seems to me that anything short of striking out the two sections is permissible. Or is striking out an "all-or-nothing" proposition?

I don't know that I follow. If the amendment is simply to strike D and E, then I think, unless the changes are conforming, the question is divisible as to the two sections. When the motion to strike D is pending, though, it would only be in order, I would think, to amend by removing text from the strike, not by making it a strike and insert, because the insertion would not be in scope of notice. Similarly, a substitution for E would probably be out of scope of notice. 

[Atul Kapur]

Just adding the reference to support J. Katz' post above:

RONR 11th ed, p. 595, l.32 - p. 596, l. 7:

"Amendments to strike out a sentence, paragraph, or section deserve special care. In such cases, the existing bylaw is not itself open to consideration, but only the amendment. If notice is given to strike out a provision of the bylaws and some members feel it should be retained with certain changes whose substance would be outside the scope of that notice,
those members should immediately give notice of the amendments to the existing provisions which they think are advisable. Otherwise, friends of the existing provision will be cut off from opportunity to work out compromises for its partial retention by perfecting the existing language."

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎7‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 12:09 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Maybe y'all need to start a new thread in which you can argue about what Dan Honemann really meant. Of course, this being an exercise in literary analysis, Mr. Honemann's own views of the matter will be irrelevant. 

Now I shall proceed to explain: What he said was that if he was wrong (which he wasn't), the rights of absentees have got nothing at all to do with it. [Which, when you think about it, is an obvious statement, because how on earth could the rights of absentees have anything to do with Dan being wrong, which he never is, eh?]

🙂

 

[JamesMcLean]

On 7/10/2018 at 2:13 PM, Josh Martin said:

The question that was asked, however, did not ask whether a member could change the notice, but instead asked whether a member could make a motion which differed from the notice.

Thank you for opening my eyes to the distinction between modifying the notice, and making a motion that differs from the notice.