Motion to approve, amend, withdraw, and refer

[whatshappening]

I would appreciate your view on this:

1) Matter comes to the floor
2) Motion to approve is moved and seconded
3) Motion to amend is made, seconded, and approved
4) Motion to approve is withdrawn successfully
5) Motion to refer to committee is approved

In this scenario, is the amendment that was approved part of the matter that is sent to committee or is the version that goes back to committee reverted back to the original version that came to the floor in step 1.

Thank you.

Edited September 25, 2018 at 04:09 AM by whatshappening

[Atul Kapur]

What happened doesn't follow the RONR procedure, so it's hard to answer your question. Your use of the term "motion to approve" is confusing as you seem to be using it to mean two different things.

After step 3, the subject under consideration is the amended motion.

So step 4 would have been the withdrawal of that amended motion (or, as you put it, the "motion to approve")  because it is the only motion under consideration at this point.

So, after Step 4, there would be nothing under consideration.

So it's not at all clear what was referred to the committee in step 5.

Edited September 25, 2018 at 06:47 AM by Atul Kapur
Trying to clarify my confusion

[Guest Zev]

What I did not understand is what you meant in step 3 by "...and approved." Was the amendment adopted? If that is true then step 4 makes no sense. A clarification if you please.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Once the motion is withdrawn, the amendment dies with it. Step 5 becomes an original motion to refer the "matter" to a committee.

[whatshappening]

Thank you for replying.

Atul - thanks for your questions. The matter at hand was a proposal and the amendment was a alteration to that written proposal. The amendment passed but ultimately the will of the body was to stop deliberating at that point and refer the proposal back to Committee.

Guest - yes, the amendment was adopted. After it was adopted the discussion reverted to the motion to approve the matter (now amended). That is the motion that was withdrawn and replaced with a motion to refer

My argument was that what was sent to Committee should include the amendment because it passed.

[whatshappening]

Dinner - thanks for replying. That was the consensus though I disagreed.

Is there a better procedure I can use to protect an amendment I make in the future?

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, whatshappening said:

I would appreciate your view on this:

1) Matter comes to the floor
2) Motion to approve is moved and seconded
3) Motion to amend is made, seconded, and approved
4) Motion to approve is withdrawn successfully
5) Motion to refer to committee is approved

In this scenario, is the amendment that was approved part of the matter that is sent to committee or is the version that goes back to committee reverted back to the original version that came to the floor in step 1.

Thank you.

It would seem that neither of them were referred to committee, since the motion was withdrawn.

8 minutes ago, whatshappening said:

Thank you for replying.

Atul - thanks for your questions. The matter at hand was a proposal and the amendment was a alteration to that written proposal. The amendment passed but ultimately the will of the body was to stop deliberating at that point and refer the proposal back to Committee.

Guest - yes, the amendment was adopted. After it was adopted the discussion reverted to the motion to approve the matter (now amended). That is the motion that was withdrawn and replaced with a motion to refer

My argument was that what was sent to Committee should include the amendment because it passed.

If the intent was to refer the main motion, as amended, to committee, Step 4 should have been skipped. The motion to refer may be applied to a pending motion. If this had been done, it is indeed correct that the amendments would have been included.

Since the motion was withdrawn, however, I think that the subject was referred to the committee, but no particular motion was referred.

1 minute ago, whatshappening said:

Dinner - thanks for replying. That was the consensus though I disagreed.

Is there a better procedure I can use to protect an amendment I make in the future?

Follow the same process as above but skip the motion to withdraw.

[jstackpo]

Previously written:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

49 minutes ago, whatshappening said:

Is there a better procedure I can use to protect an amendment I make in the future?

Follow the same process as above but skip the motion to withdraw.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But combine steps 1) and 2) as they are really just two parts of a motion to do whatever it was.   Making a motion "to approve" is unnecessary (which is why it isn't found in RONR).  Making a motion to do whatever, having it seconded, and then stated by the chair is sufficient to propose something and have it placed before the assembly for a decision.

And depending on how steps 4 & 5 are jointly interpreted, the motion is either now in the hands of the committee (with, as noted, the adopted amendment incorporated in it) awaiting the committee's report at some future meeting or withdrawn and available to be made (again) by anybody at any future time.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

3 hours ago, whatshappening said:

Dinner - thanks for replying. That was the consensus though I disagreed.

Is there a better procedure I can use to protect an amendment I make in the future?

Object when the request to withdraw the motion is made, force a vote, and vote against the withdrawal.

[Atul Kapur]

Based on the extra information, it seems to me that the proposal, as amended, is what was referred. The committee should start with that. 

This interpretation doesn't follow the strict RONR meaning of the motion To Withdraw, but I'm taking that liberty because this group isn't following RONR exactly, anyway.

As to the future, I support Dr. Stackpole's recommendations which will, by following RONR, simplify your processes and likely shorten your meetings. I would just add that (A) the way to combine steps 1 & 2 is to have the written proposals in the form of a motion to do what is proposed, and (B) you don't need to withdraw the proposal (as amended) to refer the matter to a committee. Just refer the motion that is under consideration to the committee. And voila, a 5-step process is now just 3.

Edited September 25, 2018 at 06:30 PM by Atul Kapur

[Richard Brown]

If this group considers that the withdrawn motion was then referred to a committee, so be it, but according to RONR once the motion was withdrawn it no longer existed and there was nothing to refer to a committee.  However, another member could make a motion to refer the subject matter to a committee, but the motion itself was dead and could not be referred.  A new motion to do the same thing at the same meeting would have been out of order.

Obviously this group was not following proper procedure, so if they want to consider that the motion got referred to a committee, so be it.   They are going to do what they want to do anyway.

I guess I'm ultimately supporting the conclusion that Atul Kapur came to, even though it is not parliamentary proper and it's based on the fact that this group wasn't following proper procedure to start with. Referring the matter/motion to a committee appears what they wanted to do and thought they were doing.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

If this group considers that the withdrawn motion was then referred to a committee, so be it, but according to RONR once the motion was withdrawn it no longer existed and there was nothing to refer to a committee.  However, another member could make a motion to refer the subject matter to a committee, but the motion itself was dead and could not be referred.  A new motion to do the same thing at the same meeting would have been out of order.

Obviously this group was not following proper procedure, so if they want to consider that the motion got referred to a committee, so be it.   They are going to do what they want to do anyway.

I guess I'm ultimately supporting the conclusion that Atul Kapur came to, even though it is not parliamentary proper and it's based on the fact that this group wasn't following proper procedure to start with. Referring the matter/motion to a committee appears what they wanted to do and thought they were doing.

Is it at all certain that this is “what they wanted to do and thought they were doing”? There appears to be significant disagreement within the assembly whether the amendments were referred, for instance. Perhaps it would be prudent for the assembly to instruct the committee on this matter at its next meeting, in order to clear up any ambiguity.

[Guest Zev]

Here is what I think happened.

Observe the sequence of events back at the initial posting. Delete step 4 from that list. It then becomes clear what happened. In regards to step 4, The OP, and possibly their assembly, is using non-standard language to describe the act of moving to Refer and adopting that motion. My guess is that they thought that the main motion as amended had to be somehow withdrawn before it could be referred to the committee, which is not the case.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

I don't know if that's what the organization thinks. But it is clearly what whatshappening thinks — that there is some kind of subsidiary motion "to approve" which is separate from the main motion. No such motion exists under proper procedure.

[Gary Novosielski]

21 hours ago, whatshappening said:

I would appreciate your view on this:

1) Matter comes to the floor
2) Motion to approve is moved and seconded
3) Motion to amend is made, seconded, and approved
4) Motion to approve is withdrawn successfully
5) Motion to refer to committee is approved

In this scenario, is the amendment that was approved part of the matter that is sent to committee or is the version that goes back to committee reverted back to the original version that came to the floor in step 1.

Thank you.

If the rules in RONR apply, this situation would, I think, be better described as follows:

1. A main motion is made and seconded, and becomes the pending question.
2. Motion to amend is made, seconded, and approved.
3. The main motion as amended is now the pending question.
4. A motion to refer the question to a committee is made, seconded, and approved.

The pending motion as amended, is now in the hands of the committee.

The major discrepancies between the two scenarios are:

• There is no such thing as a motion to Approve.  When the matter comes to the floor, in your first step, it is done by means of a main motion.  There is no additional motion to approve the motion.
• You state that the motion was withdrawn.  Since there is no motion to Approve, this must mean that the main motion was withdrawn.  But that can't be true either, since if it were, there would be no pending question, and therefore nothing to refer to committee.  I assume that withdrawal was an error.  Also, withdrawal of a motion, once it is under consideration, requires the permission of the assembly, not merely the mover, so it's likely withdrawal did not actually occur.

But your question, regarding what is under consideration of the committee fortunately has a clear answer. Since the amendment was voted on and agreed to, the committee, if it gets anything, gets the motion as amended,  not as originally moved.

[Shmuel Gerber]

21 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Making a motion "to approve" is unnecessary (which is why it isn't found in RONR). 

 

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

I don't know if that's what the organization thinks. But it is clearly what whatshappening thinks — that there is some kind of subsidiary motion "to approve" which is separate from the main motion. No such motion exists under proper procedure.

 

10 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

There is no such thing as a motion to Approve.  When the matter comes to the floor, in your first step, it is done by means of a main motion.  There is no additional motion to approve the motion.

It's true that there is no subsidiary motion "to approve." However, most meetings feature the approval of the minutes of the previous meeting, and RONR certainly has rules relating to a main motion to approve in other contexts, as on pages 124-125. Without knowing what type of assembly this is or what type of matter was brought before it, it's hard to know whether a motion to approve was appropriate -- and, if it was appropriate, whether a motion to amend was also appropriate.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But that can't be true either, since if it were, there would be no pending question, and therefore nothing to refer to committee.  I assume that withdrawal was an error.

When no main motion is pending, the motion to Refer is in order as an incidental main motion. It is possible that the assembly erroneously believed that it was necessary to withdraw a main motion in order to refer that same main motion to the committee. It is also possible, however, that the assembly intended to refer only the general subject to the committee, in order to grant the committee more freedom in its consideration of this matter.

We (and the committee) could spend all day guessing what the assembly meant, or the assembly could adopt instructions for the committee at its next meeting. The latter seems more productive.

Edited September 26, 2018 at 02:03 PM by Josh Martin

[jstackpo]

24 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It is possible that the assembly erroneously believed that it was necessary to withdraw a main motion in order to refer that same main motion to the committee.

Another possibility, which is more or less consistent with whatshappening's Step 2, would be that the group felt it was necessary to withdraw the (spurious) motion to "adopt" before they could apply a motion to refer to their motion on the floor -- Step 1.

If that's the case then the committee has the motion in hand (amendment included) and we are all awaiting (with bated breath) the commirree's report at the next meeting, or whenever it was told to report.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Another possibility, which is more or less consistent with whatshappening's Step 2, would be that the group felt it was necessary to withdraw the (spurious) motion to "adopt" before they could apply a motion to refer to their motion on the floor -- Step 1.

If that's the case then the committee has the motion in hand (amendment included) and we are all awaiting (with bated breath) the commirree's report at the next meeting, or whenever it was told to report.

Yes, I understand that some believe that there were two separate motions made - a motion to take some action, and then a separate motion to “approve” this motion. If this is in fact the case, this was improper, and may affect the proper understanding of what was referred to committee.

My own reading of it, however, is that only one main motion was made on the subject (the motion to approve, which stated what was being approved) and the reference to “Matter comes to the floor” is an indication that the chair was announcing the next item on the agenda and/or a reference to informal discussion before a motion was made.

On 9/24/2018 at 11:06 PM, whatshappening said:

1) Matter comes to the floor
2) Motion to approve is moved and seconded

 

Edited September 26, 2018 at 06:10 PM by Josh Martin