Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
Guest Guest

Motion after amendments

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

In an earlier question there where questions about withdrawing a motion. 

My questions are the same but after an amendment has been approved: 

Can the maker of the original motion

- speak against it?

- ask to withdraw it?

Also what is recorded in the minutes when a motion is withdrawn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Guest Guest said:

In an earlier question there where questions about withdrawing a motion. 

My questions are the same but after an amendment has been approved: 

Can the maker of the original motion

- speak against it?

- ask to withdraw it?

Also what is recorded in the minutes when a motion is withdrawn?

"A request for permission to withdraw a motion, or a motion to grant such permission, can be made at any time before voting on the question has begun, even though the motion has been amended, and even though subsidiary or incidental motions may be pending. Any such motions that adhere to the main motion cease to be before the assembly and require no further disposition if the main motion is withdrawn."    (RONR, 11th ed., p. 297)

Ordinarily, nothing is said in the minutes about a motion that has been withdrawn (but see the footnote on p. 469 for exceptions to this rule).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While a subsidiary motion to Amend is immediately pending, the maker of the Main Motion is permitted to speak in opposition to it.  He is not permitted, however,  to speak against the Main Motion, as amendedRONR (11th ed.), p. 393.  His option is to signal his opposition to the Main Motion, as amended, by making a Request to Withdraw a MotionRONR (11th ed.), pp. 295-298.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Guest Guest said:

My questions are the same but after an amendment has been approved: 

Can the maker of the original motion

- speak against it?

- ask to withdraw it?

 

Whether amended or not, the original mover may not speak against it, but may vote against it.

However, seeking leave to withdraw a motion is a clear indication that the mover does not support it in its current form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the logic behind this rule? If the motion was to, say, censure someone, and it is amended to congratulate them, why can the maker not speak against it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I didn't say it was logical, but from all I can tell, it is the rule.  I've checked to see if there is more discussion in PL but it doesn't seem to be addressed there at all.

 

9 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree that it is not logical, but it is the rule in RONR. 

I, too, agree that I don't see the logic in it, but it is the rule. When the motion has been amended to do something other than what the original maker intended, he should be able to speak the motion as amended.  But, the rule says he can't.  At least the rule in the 11th edition says he can't.  I just got my new 12th  edition in the mail yesterday in advance of the NAP Training Conference and I will check to see if the rule has changed, but I'm not going to bet on it.  (I mean I'm not going to bet that it was changed!) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I just got my new 12th  edition in the mail yesterday in advance of the NAP Training Conference and I will check to see if the rule has changed, but I'm not going to bet on it.  (I mean I'm not going to bet that it was changed!)

It hasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Changed

As far as I can see (12th edition ebook version) it is changed.

The paragraph now states that the maker can not speak against his OWN motion, and I think itmaens the un amended version , so I think after an unfriendly amendment the maker may speak against it.

A related problem: can he ask to have his name removed as mover of an motion that he no longer supports?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Guest Changed said:

The paragraph now states that the maker can not speak against his OWN motion, and I think itmaens the un amended version , so I think after an unfriendly amendment the maker may speak against it.

Au contraire. The wording in the 12th edition (43:25) is exactly the same as it was in the 11th (p. 393, ll. 19-26).

 

5 hours ago, Guest Changed said:

A related problem: can he ask to have his name removed as mover of an motion that he no longer supports?

As frequently is stated on this forum, he may ask, but the assembly is under no obligation to grant the request.

Assemblies that dislike the rule are free to adopt a Special Rule of Order allowing the maker to speak against his own motion, either any time or after some specified condition. Otherwise, the rule remain what it was before. 

 

Edited by Weldon Merritt
Edited to correct citation to the 11th edition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Guest Changed said:

As far as I can see (12th edition ebook version) it is changed.

The paragraph now states that the maker can not speak against his OWN motion, and I think itmaens the un amended version , so I think after an unfriendly amendment the maker may speak against it.

No, it is not changed. I see nothing that supports your contention that an amendment allows the mover to speak against the motion they moved. On the contrary, RONR (12th ed.) 43:25 says, "If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion . . . ." While it is pending includes the time after it has been amended.

2 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

The wording in the 12th edition (43:25) is exactly the same as it was in the 11th (p. 397, ll. 12-17).

I believe you are referring to 11th ed., p. 393, ll. 19-26.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest My mistake

Sorry my mistake , I don't have the 11th edition myself and I saw that in the second  post it said "motion as amended" ( with reference RONR 11, p393) and I did not see that in the 12th edition so therefore 

Also after the motion is stated by the chair it becomes the property of the assembly,  so I thought only that motion can be said to be the makers OWN motion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Al Dunbar
On 8/22/2020 at 10:41 AM, Joshua Katz said:

What is the logic behind this rule? If the motion was to, say, censure someone, and it is amended to congratulate them, why can the maker not speak against it?

As I understand it, any amendment seeking to reverse the meaning of the original motion is, for that reason, considered out of order. If this is properly ruled on by the chair, there would not be an opportunity for anyone to speak either for or against.

Once the censuring motion passes, I believe a followup motion of congratulation would be out of order without first seeking to rescind a motion previously passed

But, in the event that the censuring motion is defeated, I believe a followup motion of congratulation would be in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Guest Al Dunbar said:

As I understand it, any amendment seeking to reverse the meaning of the original motion is, for that reason, considered out of order. If this is properly ruled on by the chair, there would not be an opportunity for anyone to speak either for or against.

This is incorrect. Amendments seeking the reverse the meaning of the original motion are sometimes germane and in order. If I remember correctly (I may not), the example I gave is the one RONR uses. But, regardless, the test for an amendment is whether or not it is germane, and a "reversal" will often be germane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Guest Al Dunbar said:

As I understand it, any amendment seeking to reverse the meaning of the original motion is, for that reason, considered out of order. If this is properly ruled on by the chair, there would not be an opportunity for anyone to speak either for or against.
 

That's incorrect.  See: RONR (12th Ed.) 10:56      

Quote

A motion to ratify can be amended by substituting a motion of censure, and vice versa....

 

Edited by Gary Novosielski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Guest Al Dunbar said:

As I understand it, any amendment seeking to reverse the meaning of the original motion is, for that reason, considered out of order. If this is properly ruled on by the chair, there would not be an opportunity for anyone to speak either for or against.

Are you by chance Canadian? Up here, that's a common belief and some Canadian parliamentary authorities do prohibit "hostile" amendments. But RONR is clear that they are allowed, as long as they are not just a nullification of the motion (e.g., this would be out of order: I move that we amend the motion "That we do something" by inserting the word "not" between "we" and "do")

33 minutes ago, Guest Al Dunbar said:

Once the censuring motion passes, I believe a followup motion of congratulation would be out of order without first seeking to rescind a motion previously passed

Correct. Or you could do it in one step by using the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to strike out "congratulate" and insert "censure."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't a clever member, after seeing his own motion amended in a way that makes it no longer acceptable to him, move to suspend the rules so as to permit himself to speak against it?  If the suspension motion is adopted, then he can speak against it.  If the suspension motion fails, he has at least signaled to his colleagues that he no longer supports it without actually having spoken against it.  If the goal is to document in the minutes that he opposed the motion as amended, perhaps he should move to take a roll call vote on the question.  RONR (11th ed.) p. 283, or RONR (12th ed.) 30:1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Alicia Percell said:

Couldn't a clever member, after seeing his own motion amended in a way that makes it no longer acceptable to him, move to suspend the rules so as to permit himself to speak against it?  If the suspension motion is adopted, then he can speak against it.  If the suspension motion fails, he has at least signaled to his colleagues that he no longer supports it without actually having spoken against it.  If the goal is to document in the minutes that he opposed the motion as amended, perhaps he should move to take a roll call vote on the question.  RONR (11th ed.) p. 283, or RONR (12th ed.) 30:1.

Hi Alicia!

Sure. But I think my question as to the point of this rule still stands - just because we can circumvent it doesn't mean it's not pointless. In fact, it suggests it is. Why have a rule that requires people to do things in a more complicated way?

The way I asked if, I would hope that the point is not to get it into the minutes, since, in the rare organization that takes proper minutes, what is said in debate wouldn't appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second response to this post used this argument:  "He is not permitted, however,  to speak against the Main Motion, as amendedRONR (11th ed.), p. 393."

The phrase "as amended" is underlined for emphasis, but I don't really see that angle addressed in the referenced passage, which says:

"REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion (pp. 295–97)."

It says he can't speak against "his own motion" and if he changes his mind "while the motion he made is pending," then he should ask to withdraw.  However, if an amendment has been adopted in the meantime, particularly one which makes the result objectionable, is the pending motion still "the motion he made" or is the amended version now a different motion which would allow him to speak against it as it is no longer "his own motion?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is still the motion that the maker made, even if it has been amended along the way.

It is similar to the limit of speaking twice to a question. After a motion has been amended, it is still the same question. You don't get another two opportunities to speak on the motion as amended.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that the maker's permission is still required to withdraw a motion, even after it has been radically amended.  Similarly, the maker's name will be used in the minutes, although the minutes should reflect that the main motion was amended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...