Motions and friendly amendments

[Guest Mike]

Hi Folks,

I'm Mike F. and my question today to the forum is, 

When a motion has been properly presented and seconded, and goes to discussion, how does a friendly amendment to the original motion work. Does it have to be accepted by the original motion presenter?  Also, how many friendly amendments are allowed during the discussion?  Thanks!

[George Mervosh]

See http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#8

[Joshua Katz]

There is no such thing (in RONR) as a "friendly amendment." There are only amendments, and the assembly decides whether a pending motion is to be amended by a majority vote. The maker has nothing to do with it - once the chair has stated the motion, it belongs to the assembly. There is no limit on how many amendments may be made, but only one primary amendment may be pending at a time, and when a primary amendment is pending, only one secondary amendment may be pending at a time - and no amendments of higher order than secondary are permitted. Once one primary amendment is resolved, though, another can be made, until time is up or the previous question is adopted. 

[Drake Savory]

At the latest convention I was at, the Chair not wishing to fight that continual "I offer a friendly amendment" chose to interpret it as "I ask unanimous consent to amend the motion ..."

[Richard Brown]

37 minutes ago, Drake Savory said:

At the latest convention I was at, the Chair not wishing to fight that continual "I offer a friendly amendment" chose to interpret it as "I ask unanimous consent to amend the motion ..."

The answer to FAQ # 8, posted above by Mr. Mervosh, pretty much addresses that type situation. It is important to note, however, that if even one member objects, the proposed "friendly amendment" must be treated as any other amendment and processed and put to a vote of the assembly. The maker of the original motion has no more say in the matter than any other member.

[Gary Novosielski]

11 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

The answer to FAQ # 8, posted above by Mr. Mervosh, pretty much addresses that type situation. It is important to note, however, that if even one member objects, the proposed "friendly amendment" must be treated as any other amendment and processed and put to a vote of the assembly. The maker of the original motion has no more say in the matter than any other member.

Well, no, but the maker of the original motion still qualifies as "even one member".

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, no, but the maker of the original motion still qualifies as "even one member".

Well, of course. I don't think my answer implied otherwise.  The member who made the motion is a member and if he objects, then there is an objection.  My main point is that his express consent is not necessary and that the proposed "friendly amendment" can be handled by unanimous consent if there is no objection.... from ANY member.

[Gary Novosielski]

No, I don't think my answer implied that your answer implied otherwise either. 🙂 ...or something.

I can envision a case where there was an objection, and during the subsequent debate on the amendment, the mover of the original motion expressed agreement with the amendment.  Although the original mover has no more parliamentary clout than anyone else, the culture of the assembly might be such that members would be inclined to give that opinion more weight.  I think it would be in order to say, "As the original mover, I support the amendment for the following reason(s)...."   Similarly, if the mover opposed the amendment, there's no harm in pointing out in debate that, as the author of the original language, the amendment falls short for <reasons>.

Of course, the vote would still be required, but I don't see a problem with taking advantage when it's available.  Do you agree?

[Richard Brown]

17 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No, I don't think my answer implied that your answer implied otherwise either. 🙂 ...or something.

I can envision a case where there was an objection, and during the subsequent debate on the amendment, the mover of the original motion expressed agreement with the amendment.  Although the original mover has no more parliamentary clout than anyone else, the culture of the assembly might be such that members would be inclined to give that opinion more weight.  I think it would be in order to say, "As the original mover, I support the amendment for the following reason(s)...."   Similarly, if the mover opposed the amendment, there's no harm in pointing out in debate that, as the author of the original language, the amendment falls short for <reasons>.

Of course, the vote would still be required, but I don't see a problem with taking advantage when it's available.  Do you agree?

Yes, I agree! 

[Drake Savory]

21 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No, I don't think my answer implied that your answer implied otherwise either. 🙂 ...or something.

I can envision a case where there was an objection, and during the subsequent debate on the amendment, the mover of the original motion expressed agreement with the amendment.  Although the original mover has no more parliamentary clout than anyone else, the culture of the assembly might be such that members would be inclined to give that opinion more weight.  I think it would be in order to say, "As the original mover, I support the amendment for the following reason(s)...."   Similarly, if the mover opposed the amendment, there's no harm in pointing out in debate that, as the author of the original language, the amendment falls short for <reasons>.

Of course, the vote would still be required, but I don't see a problem with taking advantage when it's available.  Do you agree?

This is exactly what happened at the convention.  The original maker of the motion was given the first opportunity to object and if they didn't it was opened up to the assembly to object.

Personally I think that is a poor way to handle it.  If I were presiding I would have explained the rules the first time it happened and then afterwards say, "There is no friendly amendment in the rules, the motion to amend is ..."

[Atul Kapur]

If the presiding officer believes that it is unlikely that anyone will object, it can be a great timesaver to check that belief. If indeed, there is no objection then the amendment is adopted.

I wouldn't do it the way you describe, however. That is, don't give the mover any special status. Just say, "Is there any objection to adopting the amendment?" If no objection, "The amendment is adopted. The question is now on the motion as amended, which reads ..."

If there is an objection: "There is an objection. Is there a seconder for the amendment?" and proceed as usual.

[Drake Savory]

44 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

If the presiding officer believes that it is unlikely that anyone will object, it can be a great timesaver to check that belief. If indeed, there is no objection then the amendment is adopted.

The problem is when EVERYTHING is offered as a "friendly amendment" because of ignorance of the rules.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Drake Savory said:

This is exactly what happened at the convention.  The original maker of the motion was given the first opportunity to object and if they didn't it was opened up to the assembly to object.

Personally I think that is a poor way to handle it.  If I were presiding I would have explained the rules the first time it happened and then afterwards say, "There is no friendly amendment in the rules, the motion to amend is ..."

No that is not what I described.  A request for unanimous consent means that any member or members may object, no preference for the original mover. 

At the discretion of the chair, if a "friendly" amendment is moved, the chair may treat it as a unanimous consent request, and if objection is heard, or, if he believes it may be more controversial and therefore benefit from debate, may treat it as a motion to amend, and ask if there is a second--still no preference for the original mover.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, Drake Savory said:

The problem is when EVERYTHING is offered as a "friendly amendment"

Please note that Gary N and I both emphasized one point

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

If the presiding officer believes that it is unlikely that anyone will object

 

30 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

At the discretion of the chair, if a "friendly" amendment is moved, the chair may treat it as a unanimous consent request

So it's not that anyone can call something a friendly amendment and try to have this procedure followed. It depends on the judgement of the presiding officer.

Now there's nothing wrong with trying to educate the membership on what a friendly amendment is and is not. However, I would caution against eliminating this time saving procedure, because there will likely be occasions when it is appropriate.