Two proposals to amend.

[Brad V.]

This concerns the format of a tournament. Our by-laws state, "suggested changes to the current format must be submitted in writing...the general format approved will be placed in effect for the next calendar year." Two format changes (I'll call them A and B) have been submitted, both are different, and the effect of either of them would be to completely change the existing format (I'll call it C). We will want to discuss the two proposed changes (A and B) and then decide if we should adopt either of them, or retain the current format (C). Should we have a motion to vote on the three formats (A, B, and C), discuss and then vote? Would a majority be needed to adopt A, B, or C? If no majority then do we continue with the existing format (C)?

Can we proceed in this manner? Accept a motion to discuss the two proposals (A and B), and then discuss? Accept a motion to end discussion? A motion to use the following format, and the Representative states the preferred format?

Thanks.

[Josh Martin]

35 minutes ago, Brad V. said:

Should we have a motion to vote on the three formats (A, B, and C), discuss and then vote? Would a majority be needed to adopt A, B, or C? If no majority then do we continue with the existing format (C)?

Can we proceed in this manner? Accept a motion to discuss the two proposals (A and B), and then discuss? Accept a motion to end discussion? A motion to use the following format, and the Representative states the preferred format?

No. This process is not proper.

What should instead be done is that a member should propose one of the new formats (presumably, the format that member prefers). The motion is then subject to debate and amendment. Through the amendment process, it is possible that the motion will ultimately be amended into the other proposed format, or perhaps some compromise between the two, or something else entirely. After all debate and amendment is completed, a vote will then be taken on whether or not to adopt the motion as it now reads. If adopted, the new format will be adopted. If defeated, the existing format will be retained.

As to the question regarding a motion to end discussion, generally discussion eventually ends naturally when people run out of things to say. If it is desired to end discussion earlier, a motion for the Previous Question may be adopted by a 2/3 vote, which will put an end to debate and amendment and put the motion (as it currently reads after any amendments) to vote.

[Brad V.]

So for instance the "A" proposal is motioned, we follow the above process, and the "A" proposal is not adopted. Our existing format "C" stays in place? Can the "B" proposal then follow the same process?

[Rob Elsman]

It is a violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law to have more than one main motion pending simultaneously.  Thus, main motions may not considered a la carte, as it were.

[Atul Kapur]

You could do a variation of Filling a Blank. That would allow you to choose between A and B. Then you vote on whether the preferred option replaces C.

The motion would be That we replace the current tournament format with Format ___."

Formats A and B are proposed to fill the blank. Debate and a vote occur. They are voted on in order proposed and the first one to get majority support fills the blank.

Then you vote on whether to adopt the, now completed, motion: That we replace the current tournament format with Format [A or B]

If adopted, that's your new format. If not adopted, then you're sticking  with the current one.

 

An alternative, expanding on Mr. Martin's post, is to propose a motion to replace current format with Format A. Someone can move to substitute Format B for Format A. That allows the assembly to discuss the merits of both proposals and either of the formats could be amended to improve them (maybe even stealing parts of the other format) before the decision is made.

[Rob Elsman]

I do not interpret RONR as permitting the use of the device, Filling Blanks, to circumvent the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time.  From the facts given, it seems apparent to me that these are three independent proposals.  Filling blanks is not appropriate for choosing between independent proposals.

[Josh Martin]

35 minutes ago, Brad V. said:

So for instance the "A" proposal is motioned, we follow the above process, and the "A" proposal is not adopted. Our existing format "C" stays in place?

Yes.

36 minutes ago, Brad V. said:

Can the "B" proposal then follow the same process?

Generally, it would likely be better for a member to instead move to amend the "A" proposal when it is pending. A member could, for example, move to amend by substituting the "B" proposal.

In the event this is not done, it may or may not be in order to move the "B" proposal after the "A" proposal has been defeated. "During the session in which the assembly has decided a question, another main motion raising the same or substantially the same question cannot be introduced." RONR (12th ed.) 12:17 Since I do not know the specific details of the proposals, I cannot say for certain whether proposal B would or would not raise "the same or substantially the same question" as proposal A.

3 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

You could do a variation of Filling a Blank. That would allow you to choose between A and B. Then you vote on whether the preferred option replaces C.

The motion would be That we replace the current tournament format with Format ___."

Formats A and B are proposed to fill the blank. Debate and a vote occur. They are voted on in order proposed and the first one to get majority support fills the blank.

Then you vote on whether to adopt the, now completed, motion: That we replace the current tournament format with Format [A or B]

If adopted, that's your new format. If not adopted, then you're sticking  with the current one.

I do not think that filling blanks is a proper tool here.

"Filling blanks, although not a form of amendment in itself, is a closely related device by which an unlimited number of alternative choices for a particular specification in a main motion or primary amendment can be pending at the same time." RONR (12th ed.) 12:92

"Among cases adapted to such treatment are main motions or primary amendments containing names of persons or places, dates, numbers, or amounts." RONR (12th ed.) 12:93

I do not think that fully detailed, independent proposals are similar in kind to "alternative choices for a particular specification" such as "names of persons or places, dates, numbers, or amounts."

[Joshua Katz]

Agreeing with the above, I would add that there's a method to this madness, it's not just for form's sake. The reason here is that, at all times, the assembly will be considering a (single) binary choice. This allows debate to be focused and efficient. When an assembly of more than a few people tries to "bat around ideas" what often happens is a series of disconnected speeches not on the same topic. When there's a binary choice, comments will typically be in favor or against, and respond to previous speakers.

[Atul Kapur]

7 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I do not think that filling blanks is a proper tool here.

. . . .

"Among cases adapted to such treatment are main motions or primary amendments containing names of persons or places, dates, numbers, or amounts." RONR (12th ed.) 12:93

I do not think that fully detailed, independent proposals are similar in kind to "alternative choices for a particular specification" such as "names of persons or places, dates, numbers, or amounts."

RONR, by using the word "among" clearly states that this list is not exhaustive. I think that the only issue that determines whether filling blanks works is whether amendments to the formats are allowed, if not you are just choosing between them. The specification is "which format." Proposals could be a round-robin tournament with no playoff, a single-elimination tournament with seeding, a double-elimination tournament, etc. It doesn't need to be made overcomplicated.

Edited October 31, 2020 at 01:20 AM by Atul Kapur

[Rob Elsman]

8 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

RONR, by using the word "among"...

I disagree strongly that filling blanks can be misused in lieu of amendments to substitute one whole solution for another.  Nothing whatsoever in RONR (12th ed.) 12:92-113 suggests that such a thing is proper.

[Dan Honemann]

17 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

You could do a variation of Filling a Blank. That would allow you to choose between A and B. Then you vote on whether the preferred option replaces C.

The motion would be That we replace the current tournament format with Format ___."

Formats A and B are proposed to fill the blank. Debate and a vote occur. They are voted on in order proposed and the first one to get majority support fills the blank.

Then you vote on whether to adopt the, now completed, motion: That we replace the current tournament format with Format [A or B]

If adopted, that's your new format. If not adopted, then you're sticking  with the current one.

This assumes, I think, that these formats do not contain, within themselves, any legitimately variable factor. In other words, they are themselves unamendable for this reason. 

My guess is that this is not the case here.

[Nathan Zook]

On 10/30/2020 at 6:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree strongly that filling blanks can be misused in lieu of amendments to substitute one whole solution for another.  Nothing whatsoever in RONR (12th ed.) 12:92-113 suggests that such a thing is proper.

 

On the contrary, when you are talking about something such as the format of a tournament, "double elimination" and "round robin with no playoff" are related to each other exactly the same way as "blue" and "green".  In particular, the acceptance of one precludes the acceptance of the other.

 

On 10/31/2020 at 4:24 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This assumes, I think, that these formats do not contain, within themselves, any legitimately variable factor. In other words, they are themselves unamendable for this reason. 

My guess is that this is not the case here.

I feel like we are brushing the edge of philosophy here.  There are gross features of tournaments, such as "elimination" and "round-robin" which clearly are exclusive.  One could argue that the existence of "double elimination" verses "single elimination" are variables of "elimination".  However, "elimination" is an incomplete specification.  If the assembly were to adopt it, further clarification would be required.  Of course, there remains the further question of how to seed the elimination--neither "single elimination" nor "double elimination" are complete either.

I seems to me that the use of blanks would be permissible if proposed entries were required to be complete--that is, specify completely the form of the tournament.  We refer to the amendment process as "perfecting" a motion in part because it allows members to discuss variations of an idea which might gain maximal support even if the underlying idea (initially) lacks majority support.  If a proposal to fill in a blank were to permit proposals which did not complete the subject of the blank, one losses that capability.

So while I believe that one could use blanks, I believe that "propose A and see if it gets amended to B or to something else entirely" is what you should do.

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

I think we all got bogged down on the nature of the "current format" in the original post.  If it is just a matter of one noun versus another, filling blanks would be proper.

[Josh Martin]

6 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think we all got bogged down on the nature of the "current format" in the original post.  If it is just a matter of one noun versus another, filling blanks would be proper.

I agree. I'm not sure any of us actually disagree about the rules on this subject, and the disagreement is instead caused by the fact that we have different assumptions about what "Format A" and "Format B" are.

My assumption was that the motions on this matter were of some complexity and involved several sentences, paragraphs or even pages of rule changes, while others appear to assume that it is as simple as "single-elimination, double-elimination, etc." If the latter is correct, I agree that the tool of filling blanks is appropriate.

I would note for the original poster's benefit that even in the event the tool of filling blanks is appropriate and is used, the assembly is still not limited to Format A, Format B, and the current format, since additional formats could be proposed to fill the blank.

Edited November 1, 2020 at 07:41 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

Well, even Atul Kapur's suggestions for filling the blank appear to me to contain, within themselves, legitimately variable factors (e.g. "a single-elimination tournament with seeding"), and hence demonstrate rather clearly that this is not a situation in which use of the device of filling blanks would be appropriate.

 

[Atul Kapur]

There are a limited number of options that could still reasonably be dealt with by the mechanism of filling blanks. For example, Single-elimination with seeding vs Single-elimination with random allocation. 

The assembly can decide if this is reasonable for itself by deciding on the incidental motion to create a blank.

[Dan Honemann]

12 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

There are a limited number of options that could still reasonably be dealt with by the mechanism of filling blanks. For example, Single-elimination with seeding vs Single-elimination with random allocation. 

Which means that, ordinarily, "Single-elimination with seeding") would be amendable by striking "seeding" and inserting "random allocation". This is why this is not a proper use of the device of filling blanks. 

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Honemann, your response is quite enlightening to me.  I appreciate it. 

[Richard Brown]

22 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Which means that, ordinarily, "Single-elimination with seeding") would be amendable by striking "seeding" and inserting "random allocation". This is why this is not an proper use of the device of filling blanks. 

It seems to me those would just be two of the options that could be used for filling the blank.  I think filling a blank is a perfectly appropriate method to be used in this case, as is the suggestion of Josh Martin for someone to first propose option A and for someone then to move to substitute it with option B. However, you would then be limited to option A and option B. The method of filling blanks allows for still additional options which seems to me to make it perfectly suited for filling a blank.

As far as the possibility of further amending the suggestions for a blank, even selecting colors such as red, blue, or green for painting the clubhouse, each color could further be refined such as firetruck red,Light blue, or lime green. Therefore don’t see that as an  impediment to filling a blank.

perhaps the method Mr. Martin suggested of first suggesting option A and then moving to substitute option B is more familiar and more common, but I do not think that makes the method of filling a blank inappropriate.

[Nathan Zook]

45 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

It seems to me those would just be two of the options that could be used for filling the blank.  I think filling a blank is a perfectly appropriate method to be used in this case, as is the suggestion of Josh Martin for someone to first propose option A and for someone then to move to substitute it with option B. However, you would then be limited to option A and option B. The method of filling blanks allows for still additional options which seems to me to make it perfectly suited for filling a blank.

As far as the possibility of further amending the suggestions for a blank, even selecting colors such as red, blue, or green for painting the clubhouse, each color could further be refined such as firetruck red,Light blue, or lime green. Therefore don’t see that as an  impediment to filling a blank.

perhaps the method Mr. Martin suggested of first suggesting option A and then moving to substitute option B is more familiar and more common, but I do not think that makes the method of filling a blank inappropriate.

 

But if an assembly is filling in blanks, all of the options must be proposed before any of them are considered.  So one might propose "red" and another "firetruck red".  If no one thinks about "rose red" before the voting starts, that would be excluded.

Likewise the the form of the tournament.  "Single elimination with random seed" can only be the "fill" if it is proposed before there are any votes.  The body looses the benefit of the structure that comes with proposing to Amend the base proposal.  Debate on the motion to substitute will bring out various options, and whether it passes or fails, what remains is subject to further debate until some version of the proposal is dealt with finally.

Note also that votes to fill in a blank stop as soon as one proposal receives a majority.  If a different proposal further down the list would receive a greater majority, it does not receive consideration.

 

[Richard Brown]

@Nathan Zooki agree with everything you said, but that is the nature of creating a blank. It is one of the downsides of creating a blank, but does not make its use inappropriate. Once there are no more suggestions for filling the blank, you vote. That is just the nature of it. 

[Nathan Zook]

22 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

@Nathan Zooki agree with everything you said, but that is the nature of creating a blank. It is one of the downsides of creating a blank, but does not make its use inappropriate. Once there are no more suggestions for filling the blank, you vote. That is just the nature of it. 

I am mostly speaking of advisability.  So long as each proposal is complete, it would seem to be to be in order, but unwise for something of this nature.

[Atul Kapur]

My point was that, depending on the detail in the options, filling blanks could be considered by the assembly if they felt it was reasonable. After being chastened by Mr. Honemann's remarks, I still must express surprise at Mr. Zook's assertion that amending is more flexible than filling blanks.

2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

But if an assembly is filling in blanks, all of the options must be proposed before any of them are considered

Well, debate can occur and suggestions can be made concurrently. The opportunity to make suggestions is until a vote is taken, and that only occurs "[w]hen no further suggestions are offered, and there is no further debate" RONR (12th ed.) 12:99

2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

So one might propose "red" and another "firetruck red".  If no one thinks about "rose red" before the voting starts, that would be excluded.

How is this different from amending? If "firetruck" is voted on as an amendment and inserted before "red" there will be no opportunity to propose "rose red" without reconsidering the vote on "firetruck." SImilarly if "red" is adopted as the chosen colour.

2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Note also that votes to fill in a blank stop as soon as one proposal receives a majority.  If a different proposal further down the list would receive a greater majority, it does not receive consideration.

I'm not sure how this is effectively different than the alternative method. Once the assembly votes for single-elimination, it is too late to propose a double-elimination format.

There is another book that uses a process that would answer your criticism, but that's outside the purview of this forum.

[Nathan Zook]

50 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

My point was that, depending on the detail in the options, filling blanks could be considered by the assembly if they felt it was reasonable. After being chastened by Mr. Honemann's remarks, I still must express surprise at Mr. Zook's assertion that amending is more flexible than filling blanks.

Well, debate can occur and suggestions can be made concurrently. The opportunity to make suggestions is until a vote is taken, and that only occurs "[w]hen no further suggestions are offered, and there is no further debate" RONR (12th ed.) 12:99

How is this different from amending? If "firetruck" is voted on as an amendment and inserted before "red" there will be no opportunity to propose "rose red" without reconsidering the vote on "firetruck." SImilarly if "red" is adopted as the chosen colour.

I'm not sure how this is effectively different than the alternative method. Once the assembly votes for single-elimination, it is too late to propose a double-elimination format.

There is another book that uses a process that would answer your criticism, but that's outside the purview of this forum.

I mean that I think that the usual process of amending a proposal is more likely to arrive at the greatest concurrence than the use of blanks when there is significant complexity to the proposals.

If, as in the tournament example, "single elimination" were a complete specification, then I would agree that filling in blanks would work well.  But it is not.  If during the debate on the proposal to change the format, the body votes "single elimination" as one part of the format, it then proceeds to debate how to seed the tournament.  These two interrelated parts can be treated separately by the usual process more cleanly than by attempting to fill in a single blank.