Forbidding Amendments

[livingfractal]

Can special rules (rules of the day) include a clause forbidding amendments to main motions (either specific “classes” of main motions, like adopting resolutions, or in general)?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Yes.

[Bruce Lages]

To be precise, that would have to be what RONR calls a special rule of order. The term 'rules of the day' does not appear in RONR.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, livingfractal said:

Can special rules (rules of the day) include a clause forbidding amendments to main motions (either specific “classes” of main motions, like adopting resolutions, or in general)?

I agree with the previous responses but would add that the vast majority of the regular contributors to this forum are probably of the opinion that prohibiting amendments is a terrible idea. Have you really thought that through? Why do you think it might be a good idea to prohibit amendments?

[jstackpo]

At least you seem to be better off than the Republicans, with their 9th district "difficulties".

Give the chair a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

If he/she reads it (good luck!) it might start to make a difference.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/26/2019 at 3:49 PM, livingfractal said:

Can special rules (rules of the day) include a clause forbidding amendments to main motions (either specific “classes” of main motions, like adopting resolutions, or in general)?

Yes, such rules could be adopted. I would note that, so far as RONR is concerned, a resolution is simply a motion written in a particular format. So unless there is some other meaning for this term in your rules, there does not seem to be much point in a rule applicable solely to resolutions, since the rule could be circumvented simply by not writing the motion in the form of a resolution.

Adopting a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption. Such rules may generally be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

RONR does not use the term “rules of the day,” but if this means that the goal is to adopt the rule for a single meeting, this is permissible. Only a 2/3 vote is required for adoption in such cases, but it is also easier to suspend such rules - a majority vote is sufficient, and then the rule in the parliamentary authority is in force. RONR only discusses rules of this nature in connection with conventions, but I see no reason why they could not be adopted in other assemblies - they are just more commonly needed in conventions.

[J. J.]

First, I would note that the chair may require any main motion to be in writing. 

Second, an incidental main motion to suspend the rules and prohibit amendments to main motions could be adopted for the entire session.  Such a motion would require a 2/3 vote, but not previous notice.  RONR, p. 74, ll. 20-23, does envision an incidental main motion to suspend the rules.  The motion would be phrased thusly:

"I move that the rules be suspended for the duration of this session to prohibit amendments to any main motion."

An example of such a motion  is found in Parliamentary Practice, General Robert's 1921 book, pp. 19-20, though parts of the description are at odds with his other works.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015002540178;view=1up;seq=42

[Gary Novosielski]

But I'd like to reiterate that it would, in my view and, I suspect, that of others, be a  Bad Idea absent a very good reason (an example of which I have been unable to imagine).

[livingfractal]

Quote

For a resolution or platform to be considered by the delegates to the biennial state convention or by the members of the state executive committee,said resolution or platform must receive a favorable recommendation from a majority of the members of the Resolutions and Platforms Committee present and voting. A resolution or platform that does not receive a favorable recommendation from the Resolutions and Platforms Committee may be brought to the floor of the biennial state convention or the state executive committee meeting for consideration only after a motion to consider said resolution or platform is adopted by a two-thirds (⅔) vote of those delegates or members present and voting.

https://www.ncdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Current-Plan-v2-1-29-2018.pdf

 

 

Quote

Agenda Modifications and Rules Modifications. The Agenda shall be followed as adopted by
the SEC. While pending, the Agenda may be amended by majority vote. After adoption, the Agenda may be
amended by a two-thirds vote.. As for the Special Rules governing the SEC meeting, while pending, they may
be amended by majority vote. After adoption, the Rules may be amended d by a two-thirds vote .

....

Resolutions referred to the SEC by the State Convention shall be considered first, along with the
proposed amended language. Discussion and debate shall be limited to the proposed amendments.
Additional amendments are disallowed.

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CvMBsp7c8cvnDS3niSVgojsWlKwJcms-/view

There is generally a huge amount of confusion about what a resolution is.

[jstackpo]

A resolution is just a motion that has moved uptown and put on fancy dress.  Commonly written out, rather than just spoken at a meeting. p. 105.

[Gary Novosielski]

52 minutes ago, livingfractal said:

There is generally a huge amount of confusion about what a resolution is.

A resolution is nothing but a motion, but presented as a more formal written document, often containing the reasoning for its proposal in a series of Whereas clauses, followed by the word RESOLVED, and then some wording that could just as well have been preceded by the words  "I move..."   

There is no effective difference, unless the aim is to read the resolution at some ceremony or to frame it, or both.  From a parliamentary point of view, the two are equivalent.

[Joshua Katz]

On 1/26/2019 at 5:13 PM, Richard Brown said:

Why do you think it might be a good idea to prohibit amendments?

It is a good way to make meetings last longer by encouraging people to say in debate "if this is voted down, I will move..." Maybe they enjoy meetings?

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, livingfractal said:

(Excerpts of the organization’s rules)

There is generally a huge amount of confusion about what a resolution is.

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own rules, but RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 633-640 has information concerning resolutions committees, which may be of assistance. In particular, I think the following passage suggests that the rule in question is not, in fact, limited solely to resolutions.

”The Resolutions Committee—also sometimes called the Reference Committee or, in certain cases described below, the Platform Committee—has as its basic purpose the screening of all original main motions (10) that have not been screened by another committee and that come—or are to come—before the convention. It is usually not intended to require purely formal or incidental main motions to be submitted to the Resolutions Committee, or to refer to it resolutions reported to the convention by other committees (see also 51).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 633)

In any event, as noted previously, it is permissible to adopt such rules.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

It is a good way to make meetings last longer by encouraging people to say in debate "if this is voted down, I will move..." Maybe they enjoy meetings?

It appears the intent of the rule is to limit the latitude the State Executive Committee has in considering motions referred to it by the convention.

[Nathan Zook]

You want an example of why a rule to forbid amendments is a bad idea?  I give you my second state convention:  Texas State Republican Convention 1996, (National).

First, in presidential election years, the Texas Republican Party conducts two conventions back-to-back.  The first is under state rules, and deals with matters affecting only Texas.  The second is under national rules, and elects the delegate and alternates to the national convention, electors, and national committee man and committee woman.

Over a period of twenty years, the selection process for the delegates was shifted from being in the hands of the state chairman and the campaigns to the hands of the convention.  This was a highly charged fight, and 1992 was the start of the changes.

The rules for the national convention are the rules adopted at the convention in a prior year.  Any change in the rules after certain deadlines violates national rules.  In theory, the national convention may refuse to seat the delegation if the rules in force at the time of the deadlines are violated.

The rule adopted in 1992 (or 94?) was that the nominations committee would submit a list of delegates and alternates for the at-large positions, which were roughly 25% of the total strength, and that the convention could not amend the list.  The wording was odd, it would take some work for me to dig it up.  There were those that wanted to apply the rules adopted that year, and dare the national convention to refuse to seat the affected delegates.  A PRP activist who very much wanted the convention to control the selection argued that if the convention could not amend the list, then they could divide the question and reject individual delegates--or certainly recommit with instructions.  On the other side, there was a claim that the parliamentarian of the RNC had stated that the convention was required to approve the list submitted by the committee.

What ensued on the floor was generally described in the media as a riot.  I've been in riots.  There was no physical violence, and no threats of violence.  But the displeasure of the convention was made known as the chairman completely lost control of the convention.  The stunts that were employed in an attempt to quell the convention and force the list through resulted in offenses being taken that have not been set aside until this day.

So yeah.  Don't forbid amendments.  Please.

[Nathan Zook]

Even if, for some incredible reason (and please do read my prior post) you really, really do want to forbid amendments, it is actual fairly difficult to do so.

If you adopt a special rule of order, a 2/3rds vote can suspend the rule.

If you have a bylaws provision, that provision is in the nature of a special rule--so it therefore can be suspended by a 2/3rds vote.

If you have another bylaws provision that the first cannot be suspended, the second may be suspended because it is in the nature of a special rule.  After this, the first can be suspended.  You need a recursive provision.

Okay, so amendments are not allowed.  Did the motion come from a committee?  The motion can be recommitted with instructions.  And after the recommit, the committee can be discharged.  What is the situation at that point, if there is a provision against amending?

Yeah, it's a bad idea, and it's not easy, either.