Referring multiple items to committee

[PBix]

An organization has several related but distinct items on its agenda.  Member A moves adoption of the first item on the agenda.  The motion is seconded.  During debate on the motion, member B moves to refer the motion to a committee.  That motion is seconded.  During debate on that motion, member C moves to amend the motion so that it would refer all the items on the agenda to a committe, even though most of the items on the agenda haven't been reached yet.  Is member C's amendment in order?  If not, is there anything member C could properly propose that could have the effect of referring all the items on the agenda to a committee?  Or is the only proper procedure to have each item on the agenda be moved individually in its turn, and then as each is debated have someone move to refer that individual item to a committee?

[Dan Honemann]

3 hours ago, PBix said:

An organization has several related but distinct items on its agenda.  Member A moves adoption of the first item on the agenda.  The motion is seconded.  During debate on the motion, member B moves to refer the motion to a committee.  That motion is seconded.  During debate on that motion, member C moves to amend the motion so that it would refer all the items on the agenda to a committe, even though most of the items on the agenda haven't been reached yet.  Is member C's amendment in order?  If not, is there anything member C could properly propose that could have the effect of referring all the items on the agenda to a committee?  Or is the only proper procedure to have each item on the agenda be moved individually in its turn, and then as each is debated have someone move to refer that individual item to a committee?

No, member C's motion to amend, in the manner stated, the immediately pending subsidiary motion to Refer was not in order.

After the pending main motion has been disposed of, member C can move to refer one, some, or all of these "related but distinct items" remaining on the agenda to a committee (which, I suppose, could be the same committee to which the first item was referred, if it was referred). This will be a main motion, not a subsidiary motion to Refer, and if it includes more than just one of these items it will most likely be subject to division, as discussed on pages 270-76 of RONR (11th ed.).

The facts as stated are a bit skimpy, and so additional details may prompt a better response.

[PBix]

Thanks for this reply.  I afraid it would not be appropriate for me to reveal the particular details of what my organization is considering.  All I can say is that several different members of the organization have each proposed an action that would respond to a situation that the organization is facing, and that the agenda for our upcoming meeting lists each of these proposals as a separate agenda item.  The actions are all distinct, but any one of them, or any combination of them, might be considered the appropriate response to the situation we are facing.

Based on discussions with some members, I anticipate that the situation suggested in my OP could occur.  Although I am not a trained Parlimentarian, I have some knowledge of Robert's Rules and I am often asked for advice on Parliamentary questions at our meetings, so I was hoping to be prepared if this question came up.  Your reply is helpful.

Let me follow up with two more questions:

1.  Going back to the original hypothetical:  A moves the first agenda item, and B moves to refer A's motion to a committee.  Could C then move to amend B's motion to instruct the committee to consider recommending one or more of the other agenda items as alternatives to the first agenda item?  

2.  You say that after the first agenda item is disposed of, C could make a main motion to refer the remaining items to a committee.  Can C do this even though it interrupts the agenda?  RONR 11th p. 373 says that it takes a 2/3 vote to change the agenda.  (Of course, p. 372 says that the agenda is not binding unless formally adopted at the start of the session, and we never do that -- our leadership just circulates the agenda in advance.  But we've always treated it as though it were the real agenda.)

Thanks again for your advice -- it's been very helpful already.

 

[Josh Martin]

51 minutes ago, PBix said:

1.  Going back to the original hypothetical:  A moves the first agenda item, and B moves to refer A's motion to a committee.  Could C then move to amend B's motion to instruct the committee to consider recommending one or more of the other agenda items as alternatives to the first agenda item?  

I see no reason why not.

51 minutes ago, PBix said:

2.  You say that after the first agenda item is disposed of, C could make a main motion to refer the remaining items to a committee.  Can C do this even though it interrupts the agenda?  RONR 11th p. 373 says that it takes a 2/3 vote to change the agenda.  (Of course, p. 372 says that the agenda is not binding unless formally adopted at the start of the session, and we never do that -- our leadership just circulates the agenda in advance.  But we've always treated it as though it were the real agenda.)

If the agenda is not adopted, it is not binding, notwithstanding the assembly's erroneous custom to the contrary. As a result, I see no reason why Member C could not make this motion, even although it interrupts the "agenda."

In the event the assembly actually adopts the agenda (which I would note is amendable, so this could be added to the agenda prior to the other items), then it may be necessary to suspend the rules in order to introduce the motion in question.

[Dan Honemann]

I agree with Josh Martin.

I'm afraid I was a little careless in making my suggestion that member C could simply move to refer one, some, or all of these items to a committee.

[Rob Elsman]

I am stumbling to understand what agenda items have to do with this.

If member A makes a main motion, and member B moves a subsidiary motion to Commit, member C may move a subsidiary motion to Amend the pending subsidiary motion to Commit by proposing to insert or add instructions to the committee. What I do not get about this post is the whole business about the agenda. Does your group really know what an agenda is?  Does your group really have any business to be adopting an agenda?

The confusion about the use of subsidiary motions, the application of one motion to another, and the order of precedence of motions makes me think your group has not trained adequately in basic concepts of parliamentary procedure.  I also have my doubts that this group should be adopting an agenda; rather, I am suspecting the group should just follow the standard order of business.

[Atul Kapur]

1 hour ago, PBix said:

All I can say is that several different members of the organization have each proposed an action that would respond to a situation that the organization is facing, and that the agenda for our upcoming meeting lists each of these proposals as a separate agenda item.  The actions are all distinct, but any one of them, or any combination of them, might be considered the appropriate response to the situation we are facing.

There are other options which may lead to a more efficient resolution. You have four separate proposals which are all aimed at addressing the same situation.

You could refer the question of how to address the situation to a committee and include in the instructions that they consider the four proposals and come back with a recommendation (if necessary, the instructions could explicitly say that the committee is free to combine the ideas in the proposals and that the committee is not limited to those four).

You could do something similar with the entire assembly by moving into Committee of the Whole or quasi-Committee of the Whole.

It would be easier to take either of these actions if you amended the agenda to add, before you deal with any of these motions, the question of "How should we address this situation"