Motion after amendments

[Rob Elsman]

No, sir.  If the maker of a motion requests leave to withdraw it, he has given the assembly permission.  If someone else makes the request, the maker must grant the request, in effect, supplying the second.  RONR (12th ed.) 33:13-15.

[Weldon Merritt]

12 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I think you meant "the assembly's permission"?

Actually, I think both is required. Only the maker may request withdrawal (although another member may suggest that the maker do so), but the assembly must grant permission.

[Gary Novosielski]

7 hours ago, Alicia Percell said:

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?"

It is still his own motion and would be so recorded in the minutes.  However, the adoption of a poison-pill amendment is just the sort of thing that might make him "change his mind".

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

No, sir.  If the maker of a motion requests leave to withdraw it, he has given the assembly permission.  If someone else makes the request, the maker must grant the request, in effect, supplying the second.  RONR (12th ed.) 33:13-15.

If the maker requests leave to do anything, he is seeking permission, not granting it. 

I believe that your reading of 33:15 is incorrect.  That applies in the case where the member has already requested leave to withdraw, the chair has already put the question as a unanimous consent request, objection has already been heard, and the chair has elected not to put the question on his own accord.  If another member then seeks leave for the original mover to withdraw the motion, the original mover is assumed to be in favor and so this motion does not require a second.  The original mover neither seconds nor grants anything at that point.

 

Edited September 17, 2020 at 05:16 PM by Gary Novosielski
correct citation

[Rob Elsman]

However you want to put it, the assembly cannot grant leave to withdraw a motion without the maker's consent.  If the maker of the motion is the maker of the request, he has given his consent.  If another member is the maker of the request, the maker of the motion subject to withdrawal must, in effect, supply the second by giving his consent.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

However you want to put it, the assembly cannot grant leave to withdraw a motion without the maker's consent.  If the maker of the motion is the maker of the request, he has given his consent.  If another member is the maker of the request, the maker of the motion subject to withdrawal must, in effect, supply the second by giving his consent.

That is an interesting interpretation of 33:15.

In the example cited, the maker would already have indicated his consent as the first step in the process.

But presuming it would be in order for another member, out of the blue, to move that the maker be granted permission when he had never sought it, and were that seconded by a third member and adopted, I submit that there would be no need to consult the maker or gain his consent.   

Being now endowed with permission to withdraw his motion he could simply elect not to do so.

 

Edited September 17, 2020 at 05:28 PM by Gary Novosielski