Discussion of a motion

[Guest controversialcabbage]

 The Board of directors I serve on follows "Procedure in small boards" pg 487 line 26 RROR.

At a recent meeting there was a policy change proposed which recieved a second and went into discussion. Within the discussion there was talk of a percieved deficiency and further discussion as to appropraite possible solutions, which once an adequate solution was found would then be motioned as an amendment.

Whenever a possible solution was introduced (which could become an amendment after some discussion) one of the directors was acting as if discussion of a solution was out of order and that any idea which could become an amendment must immediately be proposed and seconded in order to be discussed.

It is my understanding that discussion of the strengths, weaknesses and possible solutions of a main motion is in order under the discussion of the main motion. To immediately propose an idea as an amendment without conferring would result in a much longer, inefficient board meeting.

Is it within order for small boards to discuss a potential solution to a main motion within the discussion of the main motion? Or am I incorrect and every half thoughout idea of a potential amendment must me motioned as an amendment to then be seconded to receive any discussion?

People on this board historically flesh out their ideas of solutions of a main motions weaknesses within its discussion period prior to moving to amend, giving the board in general and the committee chair specific to that main motion opportunity to speak and help form a reasonable amendment.

Thanks!

 

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest controversialcabbage said:

The Board of directors I serve on follows "Procedure in small boards" pg 487 line 26 RROR.

At a recent meeting there was a policy change proposed which recieved a second and went into discussion.

It didn't require a second.

The situation you describe is largely a judgment call. The point is that debate on the main motion must be on the merits of the main motion, and if you want to debate a different motion, you should move to amend in order to have that discussion. However, the line between the merits of the main motion and a potential change to it is pretty thin, and in general, I think it's advisable to be permissive, particularly in a small board context. But depending on the details, the objector might have a point. 

However, if this is a common problem, I would suggest that your board needs to make better (or more) use of the motion to commit. Much inefficiency can be reduced if ideas come to a meeting fully-baked.

I do not agree that meetings become more inefficient if people move to amend without conferring. My personal opinion tends to be the opposite, since moving to amend right away presents a series of binary questions, rather than open-ended discussion on "well, what color should it be?" First decide between green and red, then between red and blue, then decide if you want to paint the clubhouse.

[Atul Kapur]

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, I would also tend to be permissive.
Since you say that you're following "Procedure in small boards", you could generalize from the bullet point on page 488:

• Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending.

 

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest controversialcabbage said:

Is it within order for small boards to discuss a potential solution to a main motion within the discussion of the main motion?

It is in order in assemblies of any size.

3 hours ago, Guest controversialcabbage said:

Or am I incorrect and every half thoughout idea of a potential amendment must me motioned as an amendment to then be seconded to receive any discussion?

No, that would be silly.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

The situation you describe is largely a judgment call. The point is that debate on the main motion must be on the merits of the main motion, and if you want to debate a different motion, you should move to amend in order to have that discussion. However, the line between the merits of the main motion and a potential change to it is pretty thin, and in general, I think it's advisable to be permissive, particularly in a small board context. But depending on the details, the objector might have a point. 

“Pretty thin” is an understatement, in my view. Provided that the amendment itself is germane to the main motion (which it must be, to be in order), then it would seem to me that any comments relating to potentially introducing such an amendment will necessarily also be germane to the main motion.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I do not agree that meetings become more inefficient if people move to amend without conferring. My personal opinion tends to be the opposite, since moving to amend right away presents a series of binary questions, rather than open-ended discussion on "well, what color should it be?" First decide between green and red, then between red and blue, then decide if you want to paint the clubhouse.

An amendment will not always be this simple. The amendment may change the main motion more substantially, and I concur with the OP that in those cases, proposing a poorly thought out amendment may confuse the situation rather than clarify it.

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, I would also tend to be permissive.
Since you say that you're following "Procedure in small boards", you could generalize from the bullet point on page 488:

• Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending.

Yes, but in the situation discussed here, a motion is pending (the main motion), so it seems to me that the answer to the OP’s question is “yes” even in a larger assembly.

Edited November 20, 2018 at 07:49 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

6 hours ago, Guest controversialcabbage said:

Is it within order for small boards to discuss a potential solution to a main motion within the discussion of the main motion? Or am I incorrect and every half thoughout idea of a potential amendment must me motioned as an amendment to then be seconded to receive any discussion?

This is a false dilemma. No half-thought-out idea should be moved by any conscientious member. But it is not the case that all amendments are half-thought-out and will waste time. By moving a reasonably well-formed, concrete proposal, the debate is focused and, as proven by long parliamentary experience, the business is expedited. What wastes time is talking around all sides of an issue and then, as though it were a quaint formality, making a motion, insisting on a second, and taking a vote.

In answer to the first question, yes, of course it is in order to debate the problems and potential solutions arising from the main motion. But when the members start to debate the merits of a particular change to the motion, a motion to amend should be before the meeting.

[Joshua Katz]

28 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

This is a false dilemma. No half-thought-out idea should be moved by any conscientious member. But it is not the case that all amendments are half-thought-out and will waste time. By moving a reasonably well-formed, concrete proposal, the debate is focused and, as proven by long parliamentary experience, the business is expedited. What wastes time is talking around all sides of an issue and then, as though it were a quaint formality, making a motion, insisting on a second, and taking a vote.

 

Thank you for saying what I was trying to express, only you said it more eloquently. This is what I was trying to get at, clumsily.