Can an assembly prevent consideration of amendments?

[JamesMcLean]

One of the members in my College Senate wonders whether a motion can be considered in such a way that no amendments are allowed, but debate still occurs prior to the vote.  (He wants an "up/down vote".)  It doesn't seem to me that any person (including the chair) could prevent consideration of amendments.  An assembly could prevent consideration of amendments by immediately calling the question, but that would also prevent debate.  Is there a mechanism in RONR that would allow the group to forbid amendments during debate, possibly as a specific type of limiting debate?

[Joshua Katz]

Yes, you could adopt a special rule of order that only lasts as long as the item of business. Of course, you could also suspend it...

[Richard Brown]

The bottom line being that you can make it more difficult, but you can't prevent it.

[Rob Elsman]

A preliminary main motion proposing to limit or prohibit amendments to another main motion can be adopted by a two-thirds vote.

[Atul Kapur]

15 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

A preliminary main motion proposing to limit or prohibit amendments to another main motion can be adopted by a two-thirds vote.

Are you describing the motion Suspend the Rules or do you mean something different?

[Josh Martin]

15 hours ago, JamesMcLean said:

One of the members in my College Senate wonders whether a motion can be considered in such a way that no amendments are allowed, but debate still occurs prior to the vote.  (He wants an "up/down vote".)  It doesn't seem to me that any person (including the chair) could prevent consideration of amendments.  An assembly could prevent consideration of amendments by immediately calling the question, but that would also prevent debate.  Is there a mechanism in RONR that would allow the group to forbid amendments during debate, possibly as a specific type of limiting debate?

Technically, yes, but it may be more trouble than it's worth. The assembly could take one of the following actions:

A member could move to adopt a rule of order for the meeting (or a portion thereof) providing that amendments shall not be in order on the motion(s) in question. Since a rule of order adopted for a particular meeting does not interfere with the freedom of each session, it may be adopted by a 2/3 vote without notice. The motion is debatable and amendable. Such a rule, however, may be suspended by a majority vote. While rules of this nature are discussed in the context of a convention (because this is the context in which such rules are most likely to be adopted), there is no reason they cannot be adopted in other assemblies. 

"Convention standing rules requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption (even individually) are, in principle, distinguished by the same characteristics as provisions which, in an ordinary local society or assembly, would need a two-thirds vote to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session, or would require adoption as a special rule of order to continue in force from session to session (see 2). An example would be a rule limiting the time allowed for debate. Rules in this class are described by the term parliamentary standing rules in a convention as used in this book." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 620)

"Any standing rule of a convention (except one prescribing the parliamentary authority) can be suspended for a particular specified purpose by a majority vote, even if the rule required a two-thirds vote for its adoption. Under such a suspension, however, the applicable rules in the parliamentary authority prescribed by the bylaws (or by a rule of the convention) come into force—as if the standing rule had not been adopted." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 620-621)

A member could also move to adopt a special rule of order providing that amendments are not in order on motions relating to particular subjects. This would require a 2/3 vote with notice for adoption, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice. The motion is debatable and amendable. If adopted, the rule would have continuing force and effect at all meetings. Such a rule may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, or it may be rescinded or amended by the same vote required for its adoption.

As you can see, it is pretty difficult to adopt these rules, and even then, it does not completely prohibit the assembly from adopting amendments. It might be simpler to just move the Previous Question on amendments if they are moved, and then vote the amendment down. If the members opposed to amendments have the votes for the strategies outlined above, they should also have the votes for this.

[Richard Brown]

The bottom line being what I said in the second response in this thread:

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The bottom line being that you can make it more difficult, but you can't prevent it.

and what Mr. Katz said in the very first response 

15 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, you could adopt a special rule of order that only lasts as long as the item of business. Of course, you could also suspend it...

I do question this part of your answer and wonder if you can cite an authority for suspending the rule with a majority vote:

28 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Technically, yes, but it may be more trouble than it's worth. The assembly could take one of the following actions:

A member could move to adopt a rule of order for the meeting (or a portion thereof) providing that amendments shall not be in order on the motion(s) in question. Since a rule of order adopted for a particular meeting does not interfere with the freedom of each session, it may be adopted by a 2/3 vote without notice. The motion is debatable and amendable. Such a rule, however, may be suspended by a majority vote.

Why could such a rule be suspended by a majority vote?

[Rob Elsman]

The "preliminary main motion" I mentioned earlier is not the Incidental Motion, Suspend the Rules, discussed in RONR (11th ed., wished it were the 12th), §25, p. 260ff.  It is a Main Motion, discussed in RONR (11th ed., wished it were the 12th), §10, p. 100ff.  It is in order only when no other motion is pending; it requires a second; it is both debatable and amendable; but, it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption (Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, item "b").

Edited July 20, 2020 at 06:14 PM by Rob Elsman

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Why could such a rule be suspended by a majority vote?

"Any standing rule of a convention (except one prescribing the parliamentary authority) can be suspended for a particular specified purpose by a majority vote, even if the rule required a two-thirds vote for its adoption. Under such a suspension, however, the applicable rules in the parliamentary authority prescribed by the bylaws (or by a rule of the convention) come into force—as if the standing rule had not been adopted." (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 620-621)

The treatment of rules of order adopted for the duration of a single session are discussed in the context of convention standing rules. In my view, the rules on that subject are not unique to conventions. They are equally applicable to rules of order adopted for the duration of a single session in other assemblies.

[JamesMcLean]

Thanks so much for the rapid wisdom.  I feel well and truly prepared to offer advice on what can be done.

(Even though I myself am not convinced that this is a wise course of action.  An interesting follow-on might be to consider what conditions would make such a plan desirable.)

[George Mervosh]

There is also another option, Mr. McLean, but it may not fit exactly what your member wants because it would give him a shot at an up or down vote, but it would also eliminate debate.  Per RONR (11th ed.), pp. 266-67:

"When the object is to adopt a motion without debate or amendment, the form is: 
MEMBER A (obtaining the floor): I move to suspend the rules and adopt [or "agree to"] the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.) 
If such a motion does not receive the required two-thirds vote, the main motion can be taken up only in the normal way. 

This option may be okay to try if the members have been engaged in the subject of this motion long before it comes before the assembly, but I don't know anything about what this motion entails.  I've only seen this succeed once at a board level because all of the board members had debated the subject in an informal setting at length before formally taking it up and there really wasn't much more to say.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Perhaps the debate on the preliminary main motion that I mentioned will be illuminative.

[Joshua Katz]

19 hours ago, JamesMcLean said:

(Even though I myself am not convinced that this is a wise course of action.  An interesting follow-on might be to consider what conditions would make such a plan desirable.)

I have trouble thinking of any. Amendments contribute to fair and efficient conduct of business by making every choice binary. This has a very positive effect on debate. For instance, suppose Mr. X moves to paint the clubhouse red. In the absence of amendments, what might happen is a series of speeches in debate, with this opposing the motion split between saying it shouldn't be painted, and it should be painted blue. This debate will tend to be unproductive - in fact, what's likely to happen is that members will not engage with what was previously said, because it is hard to do so when too many topics are being discussed. 

On the other hand, if you move to strike red and insert blue, now the debate is only on the question of whether, IF the clubhouse is to be painted (we'll decide about that point later), what color it should be - blue or red. Debate will focus on this simple question. If someone wants it to be brown, they can move a secondary amendment, or just wait until this one is resolved and then move to amend. 

[JamesMcLean]

@George, Thanks much for that reminder.  I was aware of the possibility to skip both amendment and debate, but had forgotten that such a proposal can be wrapped into the original motion.