Settled Rule/ Amendment

[Guest SAA]

 Hypothetical:

A main motion is before the assembly that :

"The Club   create  a trust fund for  seniors ".

 An amendment is proposed  the  that the word  " large " be inserted before the word "trust ", and that is defeated . 

An amendment is then offered that the word "fund " be struck out and the word " account " be inserted , which is carried .

An amendment is then offered that the word " large " be inserted before the word "trust ".

Is the second proposal for the word "large" barred by the Settled Rule ? 

Thank-you . 

 

 

[jstackpo]

I'm not clear what you mean by the "Settled Rule" (it isn't an RONR term) but the second try at inserting "large" is (most likely) proper because the original question, the main motion, has substantially changed (from "trust" to "account") since the first "large" amendment was defeated.

[George Mervosh]

 

1 minute ago, jstackpo said:

I'm not clear what you mean by the "Settled Rule" (it isn't an RONR term) but the second try at inserting "large" is (most likely) proper because the original question, the main motion, has substantially changed (from "trust" to "account") since the first "large" amendment was defeated.

I must disagree with Dr. Stackpole as I think he misread the initial set of facts.  Trust wasn't changed.  Fund was changed to account.  The word large was proposed to appear in the exact same spot.

It should have been ruled out of order, yes.  

"A main motion, or a motion for the same amendment to a given motion, cannot be renewed at the same session unless there is a change in wording or circumstances sufficient to present substantially a new question, in which case this becomes technically a different motion."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 338

[Guest SAA]

Thanks both to  Mr. Mervosh  and Dr. Stackpole . Since both are well known experts may I ask if any others hold a view on this hypothetical ,which arose  yesterday in a slightly   different  form . The responses provided do not appear to be in agreement (?). 

The so called " Settled"  Rule  is described on p. 50 of RONRIB, although indeed  ,it may not be a named rule  of RONR . 

Thanks for any other perspectives .

 

 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Based on the presented facts, I agree with Mr. M. That the thing be "large" appears to be independent of whether it is a fund or an account and thus cannot be moved again as an amendment. However, it is possible, based on the circumstances of this assembly and the nature of the debate, that changing a fund to an account puts "large" in a sufficiently different context to make it a new question. This is what the chairman is for.

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with Mr. Mervosh, on the substance of his opinion and his thought that Dr. Stackpole's opinion arises from a misreading.
If I were presiding, I would rule the second try as out of order; making "a trust account" a "large trust account" is not substantially a new question compared to making "a trust fund" a "large trust fund". In other words, changing from trust fund to trust account does not, in my opinion, make it a new question.

Whatever the ruling, the assembly can Appeal from the ruling of the chair.

[jstackpo]

I did indeed misread the question.  In my (now corrected!) view the adopted amendment did not change the main motion "substantially" and the second attempt at inserting "large" was out of order.

But I still don't know (fer sher) what Guest SSA means by the "settled rule".

[Guest SAA]

Thanks to all - this seems "settled " .

Dr. Stackpole - see p. 50 RONRIB - bottom of page, header:  The "Settled "Rule .

The authors of RONR may best be able to explain why this was used in RONRIB.

Obliged .

[Atul Kapur]

It's a term used to describe the concept that an assembly cannot be asked to deal with amendments it has already decided.

"F. THE "SETTLED" RULE
The time of the group should not be wasted by making it vote over and over again on the same thing. So once the group has voted on an amendment, that specific matter is considered settled.* If the group has voted down an amendment to add certain words, you cannot propose another amendment to add substantially the same words in the same place.
For the same reason, if the group has adopted an amendment to insert certain words, a later amendment that would change just those words is not in order. However, it is sometimes possible to propose an amendment that takes "a bigger bite"—one that amends the main motion in a way that changes parts of the motion that have not previously been amended together with the words that were earlier inserted.
The basic rule is that after the group has voted that certain words shall, or shall not, be part of a motion, you cannot offer another amendment that raises the same question of content and effect. Common sense is necessary to apply this principle from case to case. [RONR (11th ed.), p. 139, ll. 23–33.]"

[George Mervosh]

Thanks to Dr. Kapur.  My RONRIB is a tad dusty on a shelf somewhere.  Sad!

[Guest Zev]

The discussion leads me to believe that "large trust fund" and "large trust account" are one and the same thing. So if "fund" and "account" are also one and the same thing, could the presiding officer have ruled the motion to strike out and insert out of order because the change had no practical effect?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

The discussion leads me to believe that "large trust fund" and "large trust account" are one and the same thing. So if "fund" and "account" are also one and the same thing, could the presiding officer have ruled the motion to strike out and insert out of order because the change had no practical effect?

It is not entirely clear to me that there is no practical difference between the two. There is presumably some reason why the amendment to strike “fund” and insert “account” was offered. That reason may be as simple as some members believing one word sounds better than the other, or perhaps there are differences in meaning between these words I am not aware of. It is conceivably possible that the chair could have ruled the amendment out of order as frivolous or dilatory, although I would err on the side of admitting the amendment as in order if there was any doubt on this point.

In any event, however, it appears that the assembly had already decided the question of whether to include the word “large” in the motion, and whatever differences there may be between a fund and an account, it seems unlikely that these differences would be such as to make the inclusion of the word “large” a substantially different question than it was previously.

Edited November 20, 2018 at 11:25 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe that an argument could be made (though not by me) that a trust fund and trust account are substantially different.  Somebody must have thought the were different enough to justify an amendment without being perilously close to frivolous. 

I would probably rule the second attempt to insert large as being out of order, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were appealed.

On the other hand, I suspect that, if allowed, the second attempt would meet the same fate as the first.  The word large arguably adds less to the motion than the change from fund to account. At some point, the amount in the account will be a known quantity, and calling it large or small doesn't change the fact.  If the word large were agreed to, and the society set up an account with only ten bucks in it, have they violated the motion?

[Guest Zev]

"Large" and not "large" does not tell me very much. Perhaps the motion should have said something like, "That the Club create  a trust account for seniors consisting of ___ dollars" and let the assembly decide how "large" to make it.

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I believe that an argument could be made (though not by me) that a trust fund and trust account are substantially different.  Somebody must have thought the were different enough to justify an amendment without being perilously close to frivolous. 

I would probably rule the second attempt to insert large as being out of order, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were appealed.

On the other hand, I suspect that, if allowed, the second attempt would meet the same fate as the first.  The word large arguably adds less to the motion than the change from fund to account. At some point, the amount in the account will be a known quantity, and calling it large or small doesn't change the fact.  If the word large were agreed to, and the society set up an account with only ten bucks in it, have they violated the motion?

It is conceivable that some members of the assembly changed its mind on how large the fund or account should be, in which event the proper action is the motion to Reconsider.

As to the use of the word “large” rather than an actual amount, and perhaps also the “fund” vs. “account” issue, we should keep in mind that this is a hypothetical situation.

Edited November 21, 2018 at 02:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

Well, I suppose we have provided enough hypothetical answers to keep the OP's plate full for at least one day. Happy Thanksgiving.