Guest Jona Sargent Posted June 6, 2020 at 03:35 PM Report Share Posted June 6, 2020 at 03:35 PM Must the main maker of a motion have to accept an amendment to that motion before the body votes on it? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 6, 2020 at 03:56 PM Report Share Posted June 6, 2020 at 03:56 PM 20 minutes ago, Guest Jona Sargent said: Must the main maker of a motion have to accept an amendment to that motion before the body votes on it? Thanks No. Once the motion has been made and seconded, it is the property of the assembly and the original maker no longer has any control over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 6, 2020 at 04:02 PM Report Share Posted June 6, 2020 at 04:02 PM (I'd write the answer this way. Not much difference.) 🙂 No. Once a main motion has been made, seconded (if necessary*), and stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, which may amend it or not, as it sees fit. ---------------------------------- *Seconds are not required in small boards or in committees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 6, 2020 at 04:12 PM Report Share Posted June 6, 2020 at 04:12 PM 2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: Once a main motion has been made, seconded (if necessary*), and stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, which may amend it or not, as it sees fit. I agree and had actually come back to this question to edit my answer to provide a page reference and to add that a motion actually becomes the property of the assembly once the motion is "stated" by the chair. Your answer, as usual, is still better than mine would have been because seconds are not always necessary. This is discussed in RONR on poages 37-42. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted June 6, 2020 at 05:26 PM Report Share Posted June 6, 2020 at 05:26 PM 1 hour ago, Richard Brown said: This is discussed in RONR on poages 37-42. Are they only poages if you're reading it while eating a po' boy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 8, 2020 at 01:19 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2020 at 01:19 AM On 6/6/2020 at 11:35 AM, Guest Jona Sargent said: Must the main maker of a motion have to accept an amendment to that motion before the body votes on it? Thanks No, this is a very common misconception, but as the gentlemen above have pointed out, once placed before the assembly, the question no longer belongs to the mover. In fact, the mover does not even have the power to withdraw the motion, unless granted leave to do so by the assembly (majority vote). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Zook Posted June 9, 2020 at 03:01 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2020 at 03:01 AM Just to be crystal clear, the custom of "friendly" amendments is no where to be found in RONR. Before the question is stated, it can be modified by the maker. (And if this happens, it requires a new second.) I've rarely seen societies that try to do this not run into problems when it turns out that an amendment is not friendly to the maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted June 9, 2020 at 05:35 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2020 at 05:35 AM 2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said: Just to be crystal clear, the custom of "friendly" amendments is no where to be found in RONR. Except on page 162, lines 9-19, where it explains how a "friendly amendment" should be handled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nathan Zook Posted June 9, 2020 at 05:39 AM Report Share Posted June 9, 2020 at 05:39 AM Uggh. Not my night. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 12, 2020 at 10:28 PM Report Share Posted June 12, 2020 at 10:28 PM On 6/9/2020 at 1:39 AM, Nathan Zook said: Uggh. Not my night. Sorry. Well, it didn't used to be in there, but so many people went half-mad searching for it that the authors took pity and included a mention of it, if only to point out that it is not a Thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Meed Posted June 13, 2020 at 10:23 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2020 at 10:23 AM 11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said: Well, it didn't used to be in there, but so many people went half-mad searching for it that the authors took pity and included a mention of it, if only to point out that it is not a Thing. So, while RONR mentions the concept of friendly amendments, it is certainly not... friendly to the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts