Secondary Motions applied to Amend Something Previously Adopted

[Setemu]

Colleagues--

A motion is made to amend something previously adopted. A rationale is provided for the amendment, pointing to a general problematic issue in the previously adopted motion, and the amendment is moved and seconded. During debate, a motion is made to refer the question to a standing committee whose charges include making recommendations on the subject of the motion to be amended.

1) Is the motion to amend something previously adopted considered a main motion (I ask, because the motion to amend is typically a subsidiary motion)? Is the main motion the question being brought back before the assembly in order to amend or is it the amendment itself?

2) Am I correct that any secondary motion to commit in this case must be to commit the amendment itself (see below for comparison)?

3) If the intent of the motion to commit is not to commit the exact amendment but to refer the general issue the amendment seeks to address for the sake of reporting on recommended motions, is that motion to commit considered a separate main motion, or can it still be considered secondary to the main motion to ASPA (in other words, again, is the main question the original motion or the amendment itself)?

3) If the amendment itself is referred, then is it also correct that, given the committee's duties include considering the general issue the amendment seeks to address, the committee can both a) amend the referred amendment under as stated under the principle of freedom of action after referral and also b) recommend a second, alternative motion to address the general issue at hand? 

Thank you in advance for your help.

Edited November 2, 2018 at 01:37 PM by Setemu
added another question--added text underlined

[Richard Brown]

45 minutes ago, Setemu said:

1) Is the motion to amend something previously adopted considered a main motion (I ask, because the motion to amend is typically a subsidiary motion)? Is the main motion the question being brought back before the assembly to amend or the amendment itself?

A motion to amend something previously adopted is a main motion (actually, an incidental main motion.  It is a "bring back" motion).  It is just like a motion to amend the bylaws.  It is a main motion. It is the motion being referred to the committee.  See pages 74-77 and also 305-310. 

45 minutes ago, Setemu said:

2) Am I correct that any secondary motion to commit in this case must be to commit the amendment itself (see below for comparison)?

A motion to commit is a motion to commit the motion to amend something previously adopted.   I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to committing "the amendment itself". 

45 minutes ago, Setemu said:

3) If the intent of the motion to commit is not to commit the exact amendment but to refer the general issue the amendment seeks to address for the sake of reporting on recommended motions, is that motion to commit considered a separate main motion, or can it still be considered secondary to the main motion to ASPA (in other words, again, is the main question the original motion or the amendment itself)?

The motion to commit (or refer) is a subsidiary motion.  It is a separate motion, but it is not a main motion.  I think that by the very act of committing the pending motion to amend, the assembly is indirectly telling the committee to take  a look at whatever prior it is that the motion would amend.  It is pointless to look at the motion to amend in a vacuum without also looking at whatever it is that the motion seeks to amend.  However, the instructions to the committee can instruct it to look at and consider pretty much whatever the assembly wants to it to consider.

45 minutes ago, Setemu said:

4) If the amendment itself is referred, then is it also correct that, given the committee's duties include considering the general issue the amendment seeks to address, the committee can both a) amend the referred amendment under as stated under the principle of freedom of action after referral and also b) recommend a second, alternative motion to address the general issue at hand?   Note by RB:  You numbered this question as a second question # 3.  I have renumbered it as # 4).  RB

Again, I'm not sure what you mean when you  say "If the amendment itself is referred", but I assume you are referring to the pending Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.   If that is what you mean, then, yes, the committee can consider the general issue the Motion to Amend seeks to address and the committee can both a) propose an amendment to the motion which was referred to it and b) recommend one or more second, alternative motions to address the issue.

Edited November 2, 2018 at 01:45 PM by Richard Brown
Slight modification to the first answer as indicated by the underlined sentence.

[Setemu]

4 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

A motion to amend something previously adopted is a main motion (actually, an incidental main motion.  It is a "bring back" motion).  It is just like a motion to amend the bylaws.  It is a main motion.  See pages 74-77 and also 305-310.

Thank you Mr. Brown. I had read those sections but unfortunately they did not bring any additional clarity. Let me see if I can provide an example:

Last meeting, an assembly adopts a paragraph motion about the planning of events, which includes the motion "that all events must be done in pastel colors." At the next meeting, Member A says that the events committee was out to purchase paint and was unable to confidently ascertain what counts for a pastel color, so Member A member moves "to amend the motion 'that all events must be done in pastel colors' by adding the words 'produced by The Pastel Paint Company' after the word 'colors'"?

At this point, what is considered the main motion, the motion "all events must be done in pastel colors" or the motion "to amend the motion 'that all events must be done in pastel colors' by adding the words 'produced by The Pastel Paint Company' after the word 'colors'"?

If I understand what you are saying above, the latter of the two is considered the main motion, and if it is referred to committee, the committee can consider any amendment to to motion referred (p. 176, ll. 20-24). Yet in this case, the motion referred would be an amendment to the original multi-paragraph motion brought back before the assembly, and so I understand that the committee can only consider amendments to that amendment, which I take to mean the committee can only consider amending the motion "'that all events must be done in pastel colors' by adding the words 'produced by The Pastel Paint Company' after the word 'colors", and it is not free to consider amending other parts of the multi-paragraph motion regarding the planning of events, even if the question regarding pastel colors might best be addressed by also amending other parts of the multi-paragraph motion.

 

[Dan Honemann]

I suggest that you take a careful look at SDC 6 for the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted (RONR, 11th ed., p. 306), and what is said on pages 307-308 regarding amendment of such motions which go beyond the scope of notice given regarding their proposed amendment.

[Setemu]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I suggest that you take a careful look at SDC 6 for the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted (RONR, 11th ed., p. 306), and what is said on pages 307-308 regarding amendment of such motions which go beyond the scope of notice given regarding their proposed amendment.

I had read that, but I think I misread this critical line in SDC 6, which I believe now clears up my remaining confusion: "Thus, a motion to Rescind can be amend, for example, by substituting for it a motion to amend what is proposed to be rescinded." Thank you all for pointing me in the right direction. I seem to be finding myself in situations lately that require me to draw from  the finer and, perhaps, more rarely drawn upon points of procedure, and I am not yet at the level where those are close to being mastered.