Left Off After Amendment

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

There is a standing rule saying during debate only six members may debate, three in support of the motion and three oppose, and each will have two minutes.  Suppose that at the end of the second member who supported the motion, someone makes an amendment to the motion.  If the amendment passes, debate resumes with the new motion (with amendment).  Do they pick up where they left off before the amendment was made or do they go back to 3 aye/3 oppose?  

Edited September 26, 2020 at 12:38 PM by Mark Apodaca

[Atul Kapur]

Whoever has the standing rule will have to interpret it.

If it helps, the limit of two speeches per question per day in RONR considers that the question is the pending motion and the question is the same whether the motion has been amended or not. So if a person has spoken twice to a motion, the person does not get two more opportunities to speak to the motion after it has been amended. Perhaps that principle will be of help to those interpreting the standing rule.

[Gary Novosielski]

12 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

There is a standing rule saying during debate only six members may debate, three in support of the motion and three oppose, and each will have two minutes.  Suppose that at the end of the second member who supported the motion, someone makes an amendment to the motion.  If the amendment passes, debate resumes with the new motion (with amendment).  Do they pick up where they left off or do they go back to 3 aye/3 oppose?  I think they will pick up where they left off.

I would think that such a rule would have to be, at a minimum, a Special Rule of Order.

[Rob Elsman]

Unless there is more to the rule than I know, you are correct.  After the amendment has been disposed of, the number of speeches a member may make while the main motion is immediately pending is the same as when the amendment was made.  The number is not "refreshed", unless debate continues to another day.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Perhaps I was not clear.  Lets say that a special rule of order was adopted by the assembly.  The special rule states that when it comes to debate, up to three members who support the motion and three who oppose the motion will be allowed to speak at two minutes each.  Now, lets say a motion was made to purchase a blue colored 2021 Mustang.  The member who made the motion was the first to speak, then one who opposed the motion.  After the second member who supports the motion finished speaking, another member make an amendment to change the color from blue to red.  The amendment passed.   Now, my question is for the new amended motion (1) does debate start all over with up to three support and three who oppose or (2) pick up where the debate was left off beginning with the second member who opposed the motion speaking then one remaining support and lastly, one remaining opposition?

[Rob Elsman]

I think I understand.  My previous answer seems correct.  The only thing is, I would interpret your rule in the light of the general parliamentary law that mmbers' right to debate is "refreshed" if debate continues to another day.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Perhaps I was not clear.  Lets say that a special rule of order was adopted by the assembly.  The special rule states that when it comes to debate, up to three members who support the motion and three who oppose the motion will be allowed to speak at two minutes each.  Now, lets say a motion was made to purchase a blue colored 2021 Mustang.  The member who made the motion was the first to speak, then one who opposed the motion.  After the second member who supports the motion finished speaking, another member make an amendment to change the color from blue to red.  The amendment passed.   Now, my question is for the new amended motion (1) does debate start all over with up to three support and three who oppose or (2) pick up where the debate was left off beginning with the second member who opposed the motion speaking then one remaining support and lastly, one remaining opposition?

You were clear, this is how I understood your first post. I thought my answer was also clear: applying the principles found in RONR, (2) is correct. But, that is an interpretation of this Special Rule of order and interpretations are done by the assembly.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with all of the previous answers by my colleagues. I think we all understood the question as originally stated. I also agree with Mr. Novosielski that the rule is actually in the nature of a rule of order as opposed to a standing rule.

Edited to add: if the society wants to adopt a special rule of order to the effect that the number of speeches a member may make is renewed after an amendment has been adopted, it may do so.

Edited September 28, 2020 at 06:45 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph