Guest Janet Posted August 9, 2020 at 11:19 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 at 11:19 PM There is a motion being discussed. A member of the board asks to amend the motion, but is told that the person who first approved the original motion must "ok" the amendment in order to move forward with the amendment. Is this the correct procedure for amending the original motion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted August 9, 2020 at 11:23 PM Report Share Posted August 9, 2020 at 11:23 PM 3 minutes ago, Guest Janet said: There is a motion being discussed. A member of the board asks to amend the motion, but is told that the person who first approved the original motion must "ok" the amendment in order to move forward with the amendment. Is this the correct procedure for amending the original motion? No. After a motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, not the motion maker. The assembly will decide whether to adopt the amendment. It is debatable and amendable requires a majority vote for adoption. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted August 10, 2020 at 12:27 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2020 at 12:27 AM This is a very common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. The mover of a motion has no more control over it than any other member once it is placed before the assembly for consideration. Indeed, the mover cannot even withdraw the motion without the permission of the assembly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet F. Posted August 10, 2020 at 02:29 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2020 at 02:29 AM (edited) 3 hours ago, Josh Martin said: No. After a motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, not the motion maker. The assembly will decide whether to adopt the amendment. It is debatable and amendable requires a majority vote for adoption. So, I would like to verify what I think that you are stating. "Once the chair has stated the motion" is this when the chair has said "We have a motion on the floor, do we have a second?" or after the server has made the motion and seconded the chair states the motion for discussion? The reason why I would like clarification on this is because we had a meeting today in which a motion was made and immediately seconded, then during discussion there were individuals that wanted to make a friendly amendment and thought that they could ask the server of the motion and get agreement from the server and the one that second it. If someone would have made a friendly amendment to the server before it was seconded, would that individual been able to offer a friendly amendment to the server? Edited August 10, 2020 at 02:30 AM by Janet F. wrong wording Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted August 10, 2020 at 03:03 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2020 at 03:03 AM 26 minutes ago, Janet F. said: "Once the chair has stated the motion" is this when the chair has said "We have a motion on the floor, do we have a second?" or after the server has made the motion and seconded the chair states the motion for discussion? The latter. "Stating the motion" is the step after someone Moves the motion (Step 1) and it is seconded (Step 2). Then the chair, if the motion is in order, States the motion (Step 3). At this point, the motion "becomes the property of the assembly" (RONR 11th ed., p. 40, lines 10-11). 27 minutes ago, Janet F. said: during discussion there were individuals that wanted to make a friendly amendment and thought that they could ask the server of the motion and get agreement from the server and the one that second it. This is a common myth. If it is truly acceptable to all, the chair can ask if there is any objection to the "friendly" amendment (aka "unanimous consent" or "general consent"). If there is any objection, then it should be processed as a regular amendment (see page 162). 29 minutes ago, Janet F. said: If someone would have made a friendly amendment to the server before it was seconded, would that individual been able to offer a friendly amendment to the server? To the mover, yes. It is the mover's decision whether to accept the modification or not. The process is detailed on page 40. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet F. Posted August 10, 2020 at 03:12 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2020 at 03:12 AM Thank you so very much for clarifying all of this for me and providing me with the sections to review for further examination. I truly appreciate it. Also, I would like to thank you for politely correcting me, since I was using the wrong terminology. Now, I know that a "mover" is actually the one who make a motion. 🙂 Thank you, again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted August 10, 2020 at 03:16 AM Report Share Posted August 10, 2020 at 03:16 AM (edited) Dr. Kapur posted his response while I was drafting mine, so I will just add that per RONR there is really no such thing as a "friendly amendment". Nonetheless, for members to offer a "friendly amendment" to a motion is a rather common (but technically improper) procedure. I do have a question for you, though: You referred more than once to the "server" of the motion. That is also a term used in RONR and I have never heard it used in a parliamentary sense. Am I correct in assuming that the "server" is the person who made a motion? If so, is that a common usage of the term in your organization or in your part of the country? Do you know how it came to be in use? Edited to add: In addition to the text on page 40 referred to by Dr. Kapur, there is additional information applicable to your question on pages 295-298. Those additional pages should help to clear up any confusion. Edited August 10, 2020 at 03:34 AM by Richard Brown Addded last paragraph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts