Motion to Amend and the right to debate

[Guest Emily]

If a member is unsatisfied with an agenda item, it is correct to say that he can make a Motion to Amend that item and debate about it? I know that motions to amend are only debatable when applied to a motion that is itself debatable, but I don't know how to tell if the agenda items are debatable or not. Can I assume that all items on an agenda are main motions because they bring business before the assembly and require a vote? For example, what if one of the items on the agenda is a proposed rule. Is a proposed rule a main motion if the assembly is going to vote to adopt/not adopt the proposed rule? So the member could make a Motion to Amend the proposed rule and would have to be given the opportunity to speak in debate about his suggested amendments? Are there any ways that a different member, who wants to prevent the motion maker from debating, could do so, like through a Motion to Suspend the Rules to vote without debate?

[Alex Meed]

5 minutes ago, Guest Emily said:

If a member is unsatisfied with an agenda item, it is correct to say that he can make a Motion to Amend that item and debate about it? I know that motions to amend are only debatable when applied to a motion that is itself debatable, but I don't know how to tell if the agenda items are debatable or not. Can I assume that all items on an agenda are main motions because they bring business before the assembly and require a vote? For example, what if one of the items on the agenda is a proposed rule. Is a proposed rule a main motion if the assembly is going to vote to adopt/not adopt the proposed rule? So the member could make a Motion to Amend the proposed rule and would have to be given the opportunity to speak in debate about his suggested amendments? Are there any ways that a different member, who wants to prevent the motion maker from debating, could do so, like through a Motion to Suspend the Rules to vote without debate?

Any new item of business brought before the assembly is a main motion. It seems you use "agenda item" to refer to a new item of business that your assembly is considering; each of those would thus be a main motion, and all main motions are inherently debatable. An amendment to a debatable motion is also debatable.

A member who wishes to cut off debate may move the Previous Question. That motion, to be adopted, requires a two-thirds vote and is not debatable; if it is adopted, it immediately ends debate on whatever motion(s) it was applied to.

Edited January 24, 2020 at 09:50 PM by Alex M.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Emily said:

If a member is unsatisfied with an agenda item, it is correct to say that he can make a Motion to Amend that item and debate about it? I know that motions to amend are only debatable when applied to a motion that is itself debatable, but I don't know how to tell if the agenda items are debatable or not. Can I assume that all items on an agenda are main motions because they bring business before the assembly and require a vote?

I don’t think it is categorically correct to say that if a member is unsatisfied with an agenda item, he can move to amend it and debate it, nor is it correct to assume that all agenda items bring business before the assembly and require a vote. Committee reports, for instance, are frequently included on an agenda, but if the report is for information only, it is neither amendable nor debatable. (If the report contains recommendations, the motions to implement those recommendations may be amended and debated, but not the report itself.)

I do think it is correct to say that if the “agenda item” does bring business before the assembly and requires a vote, then it is a motion (and probably a main motion).

1 hour ago, Guest Emily said:

For example, what if one of the items on the agenda is a proposed rule. Is a proposed rule a main motion if the assembly is going to vote to adopt/not adopt the proposed rule?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Guest Emily said:

So the member could make a Motion to Amend the proposed rule and would have to be given the opportunity to speak in debate about his suggested amendments?

Yes.

1 hour ago, Guest Emily said:

Are there any ways that a different member, who wants to prevent the motion maker from debating, could do so, like through a Motion to Suspend the Rules to vote without debate?

A member could move the Previous Question on the rule before other members have an opportunity to move to amend it. This requires a 2/3 vote. If adopted, the assembly would proceed to an immediate vote on the motion.

If a member has made a motion to Amend, however, it is too late for other members to stop him from speaking on the amendment, because the motion maker has preference in recognition. After he is done speaking, the Previous Question could be moved to prevent further debate.

Edited January 24, 2020 at 11:05 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

I'm wondering if Guest Emily is with an organization that adopts the agenda for the meeting and is asking about amending the proposed Agenda itself when it comes up for adoption?

[Rob Elsman]

I have the same wondering as Mr. Kapur. If he is guessing correctly, the motion to adopt the agenda is an amendable and debatable main motion; so, as the poster suggests, a subsidiary motion to Amend can be applied to it, and any such motion would be amendable and debatable.

[Guest Guest Emily]

On ‎1‎/‎24‎/‎2020 at 6:04 PM, Josh Martin said:

A member could move the Previous Question on the rule before other members have an opportunity to move to amend it. This requires a 2/3 vote. If adopted, the assembly would proceed to an immediate vote on the motion.

If a member has made a motion to Amend, however, it is too late for other members to stop him from speaking on the amendment, because the motion maker has preference in recognition. After he is done speaking, the Previous Question could be moved to prevent further debate.

Thank you all for your help. On RONR p. 198, ll. 18-20, it is stated that "the subsidiary motion for the previous question takes precedence over all debatable or amendable motions to which it is applied..." So if a motion to amend is a debatable/amendable motion (which it is), how do we know that the maker of the motion to amend would still get to speak? What if the motion maker makes the motion to amend, and before they starting speaking on the amendment, a member moves the Previous Question? Is there a rule that I can rely on to show that the motion maker is entitled to debate nevertheless? I know that the motion maker has preference, but the text seems to suggest that that would be overcome by a motion for Previous Question.

[George Mervosh]

39 minutes ago, Guest Guest Emily said:

Thank you all for your help. On RONR p. 198, ll. 18-20, it is stated that "the subsidiary motion for the previous question takes precedence over all debatable or amendable motions to which it is applied..." So if a motion to amend is a debatable/amendable motion (which it is), how do we know that the maker of the motion to amend would still get to speak? What if the motion maker makes the motion to amend, and before they starting speaking on the amendment, a member moves the Previous Question? Is there a rule that I can rely on to show that the motion maker is entitled to debate nevertheless? I know that the motion maker has preference, but the text seems to suggest that that would be overcome by a motion for Previous Question.

When the proposed amendment is debatable, the member who made the motion to amend will be entitled to preference in recognition.

See "PREFERENCE IN RECOGNITION WHEN A DEBATABLE QUESTION IS IMMEDIATELY PENDING. "  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 379-80

Also, another member may not simply just jump in a move for the Previous Question.  He has to be assigned the floor.  See https://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#11

Edited January 27, 2020 at 08:51 PM by George Mervosh
Added in the FAQ

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest Guest Emily said:

So if a motion to amend is a debatable/amendable motion (which it is), how do we know that the maker of the motion to amend would still get to speak?

Because the motion maker has preference in recognition, and a member must be recognized in order to make most motions (including the Previous Question). The fact that the Previous Question takes precedence over the motion to Amend means that this motion is in order while the motion to Amend is pending. It has nothing to do with preference in recognition.

3 hours ago, Guest Guest Emily said:

What if the motion maker makes the motion to amend, and before they starting speaking on the amendment, a member moves the Previous Question?

If the motion maker has sought recognition, then the motion maker is entitled to preference in recognition over other members seeking recognition. So the chairman should recognize the maker of the motion to Amend rather than the member who wishes to move the Previous Question.

So this could only occur if the maker of the amendment does not seek recognition.

3 hours ago, Guest Guest Emily said:

Is there a rule that I can rely on to show that the motion maker is entitled to debate nevertheless? I know that the motion maker has preference, but the text seems to suggest that that would be overcome by a motion for Previous Question.

Preference in recognition and precedence of motions are two different subjects. The rule regarding the precedence of the Previous Question does not change the rules regarding preference in recognition.