Propriety of Secondary Amendment

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

I have a complicated one here.  I am studying Robert's Rules about the propriety of a secondary amendment that basically killed the first amendment such that if secondary amendment passed, primary amendment would be subsumed and no longer addressable.  I know you can't offer a primary amendment that would kill the main motion.  The primary amendment was a strike out and insert words in the same place.  The secondary amendment would strike out the words inserted in the first amendment and words immediately subsequent to the stricken words and insert a new phrase in its place.  Robert's Rules addresses this secondary amendment as needing to be in two parts rather than a single secondary amendment but that would really have made a mess.  Without knowing whether the inserted words would be accepted, members may not want to strike any of the words the secondary amendment proposed to strike.

I do know that the secondary mover would have been ahead of the game by just stating that if the primary amendment is voted down, he would offer X as a new primary amendment.  Is a secondary amendment proper when it defeats a primary amendment.  Robert's Rules states an amendment that defeats the "original motion" is improper.  Is the primary amendment and "original motion" for purposes of secondary amendment? 

So complex is this question, I may be better off typing up the entire script of what is happening but would rather not do that in a forum.

Rhonda

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

5 minutes ago, Guest Rhonda Gorden said:

I have a complicated one here.  I am studying Robert's Rules about the propriety of a secondary amendment that basically killed the first amendment such that if secondary amendment passed, primary amendment would be subsumed and no longer addressable.  I know you can't offer a primary amendment that would kill the main motion.  The primary amendment was a strike out and insert words in the same place.  The secondary amendment would strike out the words inserted in the first amendment and words immediately subsequent to the stricken words and insert a new phrase in its place.  Robert's Rules addresses this secondary amendment as needing to be in two parts rather than a single secondary amendment but that would really have made a mess.  Without knowing whether the inserted words would be accepted, members may not want to strike any of the words the secondary amendment proposed to strike.

I do know that the secondary mover would have been ahead of the game by just stating that if the primary amendment is voted down, he would offer X as a new primary amendment.  Is a secondary amendment proper when it defeats a primary amendment.  Robert's Rules states an amendment that defeats the "original motion" is improper.  Is the primary amendment and "original motion" for purposes of secondary amendment? 

So complex is this question, I may be better off typing up the entire script of what is happening but would rather not do that in a forum.

Rhonda

Caveat - The secondary amendment defeats the first amendment as to the words inserted by first amendment but does not defeat the words struck by the first amendment.

 

[Josh Martin]

7 minutes ago, Guest Rhonda Gorden said:

I have a complicated one here.  I am studying Robert's Rules about the propriety of a secondary amendment that basically killed the first amendment such that if secondary amendment passed, primary amendment would be subsumed and no longer addressable.  I know you can't offer a primary amendment that would kill the main motion.  The primary amendment was a strike out and insert words in the same place.  The secondary amendment would strike out the words inserted in the first amendment and words immediately subsequent to the stricken words and insert a new phrase in its place.  Robert's Rules addresses this secondary amendment as needing to be in two parts rather than a single secondary amendment but that would really have made a mess.  Without knowing whether the inserted words would be accepted, members may not want to strike any of the words the secondary amendment proposed to strike.

I do know that the secondary mover would have been ahead of the game by just stating that if the primary amendment is voted down, he would offer X as a new primary amendment.  Is a secondary amendment proper when it defeats a primary amendment.  Robert's Rules states an amendment that defeats the "original motion" is improper.  Is the primary amendment and "original motion" for purposes of secondary amendment? 

I take it that you are referring to the following rule:

"IMPROPER AMENDMENTS. The following types of amendment are out of order:

2) One that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 138)

The words "original motion" in the context of that sentence refers to the motion which is being amended. So yes, in the situation you describe, the primary amendment is the "original motion" for the purposes of what secondary amendments may be applied to it.

Since I have no idea what the wording is of the main motion, the primary amendment, or the secondary amendment, however, I have no idea how or if this principle applies in this particular situation.

[Guest Zev]

48 minutes ago, Guest Rhonda Gorden said:

Without knowing whether the inserted words would be accepted, members may not want to strike any of the words the secondary amendment proposed to strike.

I get the impression that this is one of those cases in which the entire clause or section is proposed to be removed and a new clause inserted in its place, a process known as "substitute."

In debate make the case that if the primary amendment is voted down you will then propose the substitute in its place.

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

Yes, that is the rule I was referencing. 

The secondary motion would defeat the inserted words but not the stricken words of the primary amendment. 

Primary amendment moved to strike two words and insert two new words in their place.  Second proposed to strike the two new words and strike more words and then insert new phrase in the same place.

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

53 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I take it that you are referring to the following rule:

"IMPROPER AMENDMENTS. The following types of amendment are out of order:

2) One that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 138)

The words "original motion" in the context of that sentence refers to the motion which is being amended. So yes, in the situation you describe, the primary amendment is the "original motion" for the purposes of what secondary amendments may be applied to it.

Since I have no idea what the wording is of the main motion, the primary amendment, or the secondary amendment, however, I have no idea how or if this principle applies in this particular situation.

Re-posting a reply here.  Still learning how to navigate the format here. 

Yes, that it the rule that I was referencing.  The secondary amendment defeated the inserted words of the primary amendment but not the words stricken by the primary amendment.  The secondary amendment would strike the same words (making the primary amendment totally irrelevant if the secondary amendment passed) and also add new words. The secondary amendment killed any need to address the primary amendment.  I am thinking the secondary amendment may simply not be germane as, even though it relates to the subject matter at hand, I believe the secondary amendment was a different enough question that it could have been moved after passage of the primary amendment.  Though it would have stricken the words inserted by the primary amendment, the sum total of the phrase would have posed a different question.

[Atul Kapur]

18 minutes ago, Guest Rhonda Gorden said:

Primary amendment moved to strike two words and insert two new words in their place.  Second proposed to strike the two new words and strike more words and then insert new phrase in the same place.

This is not allowed. One secondary amendment cannot change the words to be struck out and the words to be inserted.

"A single secondary amendment involving both elements of a primary amendment to
strike out and insert is not in order." (RONR 11th ed., p. 150, lines 14-16)

You need to deal with the words to be struck separately from the words to be inserted. (p. 150, lines 8-14)

Also, the secondary amendment cannot strike out more words than the primary amendment proposes to strike out. You say the primary amendment would strike two words and the secondary proposed to strike more words. That's not allowed.

It sounds like you would be better off dealing with this as a substitute.

BTW, proposing new words to insert - instead of what the primary amendment would insert - is not "equivalent to a rejection of the original motion." Or at least, it isn't equivalent just because it proposes to change the insertion - it depends on exactly what the new insertion says compared to the primary amendment.

[Josh Martin]

59 minutes ago, Guest Rhonda Gorden said:

Re-posting a reply here.  Still learning how to navigate the format here. 

Yes, that it the rule that I was referencing.  The secondary amendment defeated the inserted words of the primary amendment but not the words stricken by the primary amendment.  The secondary amendment would strike the same words (making the primary amendment totally irrelevant if the secondary amendment passed) and also add new words. The secondary amendment killed any need to address the primary amendment.  I am thinking the secondary amendment may simply not be germane as, even though it relates to the subject matter at hand, I believe the secondary amendment was a different enough question that it could have been moved after passage of the primary amendment.  Though it would have stricken the words inserted by the primary amendment, the sum total of the phrase would have posed a different question.

Based on these additional facts, I'm not entirely certain that the rule in question is applicable here. Germaneness may or may not be an issue, but that is definitely not something I could answer without seeing the actual language of the main motion and the amendments.

I agree with Dr. Kapur, however, that the additional fact that the secondary amendment "strike(s) more words and then insert(s) new phrase in the same place" means that the amendment is out of order on the grounds that a single secondary amendment cannot address both the words to be struck out and the words to be inserted, and also on the grounds that a secondary amendment "to strike out more words" is not in order. It might have been proper to handle the secondary amendment as a substitute instead.

It would be extremely helpful if we could see the actual language of the main motions and the amendments.

Edited August 6, 2020 at 03:49 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

Okay, here is an analogous resolution with amendments.

FURTHER RESOLVED, the requirement to wear matching socks shall continue until the local Fashion Police
determines that matching socks are no longer necessary in response to the worldwide fashion crusade.
 

Primary amendment -  strike "local Fashion Police" and insert "Common Council."

Secondary amendment - strike "the Common Council determines that matching sock are no longer necessary in response to the worldwide fashion crusade" and insert "until October 31, 2020"

I do understand the issue of two parts in a secondary amendment not being allowed.  This one is so messy I suspect the only way to handle it was for the second movant to state what he would propose if the primary was voted down.

[Atul Kapur]

The "secondary amendment" is not germane to the primary amendment and should be ruled out of order while the primary amendment is under consideration. When the primary amendment has been disposed of (whether it was adopted or lost), the other amendment could then be proposed as another primary amendment.

While it may seem that, if the first amendment is adopted, that the words "Common Council" cannot then be struck out by the second (not secondary) amendment, this is allowed because it constitutes a different question from the one decided by the insertion.

"After words have been inserted or added, they cannot be changed or struck out, except . . . through an amendment presenting a new question in the form of a motion:
. . .

2) To strike out a portion of the paragraph, including all or a part of the words inserted and enough other words to make a different question from the one decided by the insertion."   (RONR 11th ed., p. 140, lines 13-23)

The first amendment addresses the question: Who determines whether matching socks are no longer necessary (Fashion Police OR Common Council)?

The second amendment addresses the question: When does the requirement to wear matching socks end (when some group makes the determination OR at a certain date)?

I suggest that you don't put a fixed end date but rather that you say that the motion will be reviewed at the first meeting after a certain date.

[Note that I was editing this response when Guest Rhonda replied below. The original last paragraph to which she replied was a warning that, if the issue wasn't masks socks but virtual meetings instead of in-person meetings, that a fixed end date could leave them without any way to meet, depending on external facts or orders. I replaced that paragraph with the underlined sentence.]

Edited August 6, 2020 at 04:11 PM by Atul Kapur

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

Excellent guess Atul but no cigar.  Thanks so much for your consideration of our troubles and your thoughts insights. 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Rhonda Gorden said:

Okay, here is an analogous resolution with amendments.

FURTHER RESOLVED, the requirement to wear matching socks shall continue until the local Fashion Police
determines that matching socks are no longer necessary in response to the worldwide fashion crusade.
 

Primary amendment -  strike "local Fashion Police" and insert "Common Council."

Secondary amendment - strike "the Common Council determines that matching sock are no longer necessary in response to the worldwide fashion crusade" and insert "until October 31, 2020"

I do understand the issue of two parts in a secondary amendment not being allowed.  This one is so messy I suspect the only way to handle it was for the second movant to state what he would propose if the primary was voted down.

Based on these additional facts, the secondary amendment appears to be out of order for multiple reasons:

1) The primary amendment is to strike the words "local Fashion Police" and to insert the words "Common Council." In the case of a primary amendment to strike out and insert, secondary amendments may be made to the words to be struck out or to the words to be inserted, but not to both of these in the same amendment.

2) The only manner in which a primary amendment to strike out words (or the strike out portion of a motion to strike out and insert) may be amended is by a secondary amendment to strike out words. The effect of this "double negative" is actually to leave the words in the original motion.

Suppose, for instance, that a primary amendment is made to purchase "socks, hats, boots and gloves." A primary amendment is made to strike "boots and gloves." A secondary amendment is then made to strike "boots." If the secondary amendment is adopted, the primary amendment will then be to strike out "gloves." If both the primary and secondary amendment are adopted, then the main motion will be to purchase "socks, hats, and boots."

If it is desired to strike additional words, this would require additional primary amendments.

3) The secondary amendment is not germane to the primary amendment. The primary amendment relates solely to which body makes the determination as to when the matching socks are no longer necessary. The secondary amendment introduces a new subject.

4) Another important thing to remember is that for a secondary amendment, what is being amended is not the original main motion, but the primary amendment. The secondary amendment, as written, seems to ignore that and attempts to amend the main motion directly.

I don't think the rule which provides that an amendment "that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion" is applicable here, but it doesn't really matter since the secondary amendment appears to be out of order for three or four other reasons.

It seems to me the proper course of action from a parliamentary perspective would be for the member to wait until the current primary amendment is dealt with and then introduce his desired amendment as a new primary amendment. That amendment appears to be in order.

Whether any of these motions or amendments are good ideas from a policy perspective will be for the assembly to determine.

Edited August 6, 2020 at 04:46 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Rhonda Gorden]

Thanks to everyone who piped in here.  It was all helpful, understandable analysis.