Getting Rid of a Postponed Item

[Josh Martin]

“It should be noted that many of the rules governing the different forms of amendment are particular applications of the following principle: After the assembly has voted that certain words (or a certain paragraph) shall, or shall not, form part of a pending resolution, it is not in order to make another motion to Amend that raises the same question of content and effect. Common sense should guide the presiding officer in interpreting the rules, both to give freedom for improvement of the main motion finally to be voted on, and at the same time to protect the assembly from motions for amendment that present questions it has already decided.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 139)

The language “it is not in order to make another motion to Amend that raises the same question of content and effect” appears extremely similar to the rules pertaining to renewal of motions, which would seem to suggest that the same rules generally apply - that is, that this prohibition does not apply during a later session.

While the rule admittedly does not clearly state that this is the case, it also does not clearly state that the prohibition does apply to later sessions. As a result, I do not think that this rule is intended to provide an exception to the general rules regarding renewal of motions or the freedom of each session.

With these observations in mind, along with the “common sense” that the rule calls for, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Honemann that the rules on this subject, as they currently stand, do not prevent making an amendment presenting the same question of content and effect as an amendment decided upon at a previous session, although I have no objection to the Authorship Team clarifying this matter in the next edition.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

FWIW, I still do not understand all of this and I am still confused. I don't see where RONR is at all clear that we can do what Mr. Honemann seems to be suggesting.   I hope the inserted provision CAN be removed with a simple majority vote at the next session to which the question was postponed, but I just don't see where RONR comes even close to saying so.

It may or may not be advisable or a proper reporting of parliamentary law. I will be neutral on that.

If the rule beginning  on p. 139, l. 25 would end with the added words "during the same session," would at least begin to make these rules relating to amendments only applicable during the same session.

That being said, there is a rule of order that says, in effect, "once words have been inserted, they cannot be removed, with the exceptions on page 140."  Nothing in that rule of order indicates that the rule is not applicable in some other session.  The general rule applies to the "pending resolution, (p. 139, ll 25-29)," not to the **pending resolution during that session.**

[J. J.]

31 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

“It should be noted that many of the rules governing the different forms of amendment are particular applications of the following principle: After the assembly has voted that certain words (or a certain paragraph) shall, or shall not, form part of a pending resolution, it is not in order to make another motion to Amend that raises the same question of content and effect. Common sense should guide the presiding officer in interpreting the rules, both to give freedom for improvement of the main motion finally to be voted on, and at the same time to protect the assembly from motions for amendment that present questions it has already decided.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 139)

The language “it is not in order to make another motion to Amend that raises the same question of content and effect” appears extremely similar to the rules pertaining to renewal of motions, which would seem to suggest that the same rules generally apply - that is, that this prohibition does not apply during a later session.

 

One problem that I see is the phrase, "pending resolution."   Clearly, a resolution can be pending during different sessions.

The analogy with renewal is not particularly good, because there was no motion to strike out only those specific words at a previous meeting.  Generally  renewal is used is when something is not adopted or not in force.  Neither is the case here.  There was a motion adopted and is, "in force" as being incorporated into the pending resolution.  That is more of a problem with the analogy than the rule

The rules in question are rules of order and they would apply to the next session.  It is not necessary to state that.  It is the normal case. I would note that the specific rule is more authoritative than the general one. 

The current wording does not lend it to the interpretation that the rules would not apply in the next session and that the assembly could initially strikeout only words that were inserted.   Maybe a future text should clearly permit it.