Extreme Example

[Tomm]

As an extreme example of a very small change, I'm contending that if a secondary motion was made, and passed, to strike-out the word "and" and insert the word "or", it in fact becomes a brand new main motion !?!?!

Even though not addressed in RONR, our corporate Bylaws requires 3 readings of a motion (with exceptions) prior to final approval. During  the the second reading a secondary motion was made to add verbiage intended to clarify the main motion.  The chair determined that the wording didn't change the original intent of the motion and allowed it to be approved as the second reading.

My argument is the amended motion was, in fact, a brand new motion because the additional verbiage could result in unintended consequences, raise brand new concerns, and therefore requires it to go thru the three full reading process again.  

Would I be correct?

[J. J.]

I would say no.  The motion is still on the same subject.  A very good example is at 12:20, "commend" being struck out and "censure" being inserted.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, I think I can easily say that no, a germane amendment does not make a whole new motion. But it's not as easy to say what that means for your 3 readings rule. 

[Tomm]

Suppose the added verbiage was "for approval by the Communications & Marketing Coordinator and a Sr. Manager prior to publication"?

Couldn't that open up a whole new can of worms and questions because perhaps now, with the added verbiage, some members may only want approval from a Sr. Manager and not  from both?

Seems to me (and I'm probably wrong) that this new added approval process opens up a whole new avenue of debate and therefore is not germane?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

As an extreme example of a very small change, I'm contending that if a secondary motion was made, and passed, to strike-out the word "and" and insert the word "or", it in fact becomes a brand new main motion !?!?!

I cannot imagine a situation in which striking the word "and" and inserting the word "or" would make the main motion "a brand new main motion."

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

Even though not addressed in RONR, our corporate Bylaws requires 3 readings of a motion (with exceptions) prior to final approval. During  the the second reading a secondary motion was made to add verbiage intended to clarify the main motion.  The chair determined that the wording didn't change the original intent of the motion and allowed it to be approved as the second reading.

My argument is the amended motion was, in fact, a brand new motion because the additional verbiage could result in unintended consequences, raise brand new concerns, and therefore requires it to go thru the three full reading process again.  

Would I be correct?

Since this question involves the society's customized rule (which I have not read, and which is up to the society to interpret) and is asking how I would apply this rule to a main motion and amendment I know nothing about, I don't think I can say with any degree of confidence whether the amendment was in order. I will attempt, however, to speak generally regarding the rules in RONR which may be relevant.

The general rules pertaining to amendments are that the amendment must be germane (relevant) to the main motion. It would seem to me that language "intended to clarify the main motion" will generally meet that standard.

Whether or not the amendment "changes the intent of the main motion" or "could result in unintended consequences" has nothing to do with whether the amendment is in order under the rules in RONR. The fact that it "raise[s] brand new concerns" might be relevant, depending on exactly how new those concerns are.

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

Suppose the added verbiage was "for approval by the Communications & Marketing Coordinator and a Sr. Manager prior to publication"?

It might also matter what the rest of the motion says, but generally I am inclined to think that this amendment would be in order.

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

Couldn't that open up a whole new can of worms and questions because perhaps now, with the added verbiage, some members may only want approval from a Sr. Manager and not  from both?

Then those members could have introduced a secondary amendment to strike the words "the Communications & Marketing Coordinator." The fact that an amendment could "open up a whole new can of worms and questions" does not mean the amendment is not in order.

1 hour ago, Tomm said:

Seems to me (and I'm probably wrong) that this new added approval process opens up a whole new avenue of debate and therefore is not germane?

A motion which adds an approval process to the rest of the motion is undoubtedly germane to the main motion. The standard for germaneness is not whether something opens up a "whole new avenue of debate," but whether it is related to the main motion. I suggest reading up on "Determining the Germaneness of an Amendment" in RONR (12th ed.) 12:16-12:21. It is not as strict a standard as you seem to think.

Your "three readings" rule might impose stricter limitations on the sorts of amendments which are in order, similar to the "scope of notice" rules for previous notice requirements for motions to rescind or amend in RONR, but I think the amendment discussed here may well even meet stricter standards such as those.

Edited February 2, 2021 at 01:24 AM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

Since your “three readings” rule is a customized rule of your organization and it’s not to be found anywhere in RONR, I am afraid you are on your own here. It is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws and rules.

Two reading and three reading rules are most often found in legislative bodies such as city councils and state legislatures. Whether a proposal can be changed between readings depends upon the rules of the organization.

[Tomm]

Now you've got me wondering; if the added "germane" verbiage didn't result in a new and separate motion, then why was it necessary to vote on the addition of the new verbiage? Could the chair simply have declared the new wording was germane and restated the motion with no additional vote on the amended wording?

I suspect that the 3 reading rule is screwing with my head! And of course an amendment to add the additional verbiage must be voted on?

[Guest Puzzling]

It all boils down to what the ,3 readings rule says. But you haven't quoted that yet.

In my (not professional) opinion as long as the amendment is germane and seconded it can be discussed adopted and so on.

Maybe after adoption the motion has to start again in the 3reading process but that depend on your bylaws.

My reason for is that otherwise what are your options:

- not adopt the main motion and start again with the amended version 

Or

- adopt the main motion and then take the motion of amending something previously adopted.

Both will take more time than just adopting the amendment and even starting again.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Tomm said:

Now you've got me wondering; if the added "germane" verbiage didn't result in a new and separate motion, then why was it necessary to vote on the addition of the new verbiage? Could the chair simply have declared the new wording was germane and restated the motion with no additional vote on the amended wording?

 

No, this doesn't make any sense. Germane means on the same topic. It doesn't mean it has the same effect. 

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Tomm said:

Now you've got me wondering; if the added "germane" verbiage didn't result in a new and separate motion, then why was it necessary to vote on the addition of the new verbiage?

Because it is the assembly's decision to make.

The criteria for germaneness is whether the amendment is related to the main motion, not whether the amendment makes absolutely no difference in the main motion.

Going back to your original extreme example, for instance, an amendment to strike "and" and insert "or" will almost certainly be germane, but the amendment must nonetheless be approved by the assembly.

I again recommend you read the section I referred you to.

3 hours ago, Tomm said:

Could the chair simply have declared the new wording was germane and restated the motion with no additional vote on the amended wording?

No.

3 hours ago, Tomm said:

I suspect that the 3 reading rule is screwing with my head!

Yes, I think so.

As I recall, this is not the first time your assembly has had problems with this rule. It would seem to me that it would be prudent for the society to consider amending this rule for clarity, or maybe just getting rid of it altogether and leaving it to the assembly's discretion whether to act on a motion immediately or postpone it.

3 hours ago, Tomm said:

And of course an amendment to add the additional verbiage must be voted on?

Yes (or approved by unanimous consent).

Edited February 2, 2021 at 02:14 PM by Josh Martin

[Tomm]

So then, would I be correct that the only reason you brought up the issue of "germaneness" is because of the 3 reading requirement and whether or not the readings should start over or continue from where it was?

Forgetting about the 3 reading requirement for a moment, would you agree that by voting and adding the additional verbiage to the original motion does, in fact, cause it to become a new main motion?

Like I said, the 3 reading rule is screwing with my head! 

[Atul Kapur]

7 minutes ago, Tomm said:

would you agree that by voting and adding the additional verbiage to the original motion does, in fact, cause it to become a new main motion?

No. It becomes the main motion as amended. 

 

To expand a bit: a member has the right to speak twice on the same question on the same day. (RONR 12th ed. 4:28).

If someone has spoken twice on the main motion, if the motion is then amended, the person does not have the right to speak to the main motion, as amended on the same day. That's because it's not a new main motion (or a new question). 

[Note: the person had the right to speak to the amendment when it was the immediately pending motion.]

Edited February 2, 2021 at 09:11 PM by Atul Kapur
Added the expansion

[Guest Puzzling]

9 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

It all boils down to what the ,3 readings rule says. But you haven't quoted that yet.

 

[Josh Martin]

11 minutes ago, Tomm said:

So then, would I be correct that the only reason you brought up the issue of "germaneness" is because of the 3 reading requirement and whether or not the readings should start over or continue from where it was?

I brought up "germaneness" because it is a relevant principle in determining whether or not an amendment is in order under the rules in RONR. The rules of germaneness would apply whether or not your society's "three reading" rule existed.

12 minutes ago, Tomm said:

Forgetting about the 3 reading requirement for a moment, would you agree that by voting and adding the additional verbiage to the original motion does, in fact, cause it to become a new main motion?

No.

[Tomm]

Here's the rule:

At least seven (7) days prior to all Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, an agenda, subject to amendment, shall be posted in XXXX Facilities and/or on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxxx.org). Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6). As soon as practicable, a brief summary of the preceding Board meeting shall be posted on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxx.org). After approved by the Board, minutes of Board meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, will be available on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxx.org) or to Members in good standing at no cost upon request at the Corporate Office.

Thanks to Mr. Kapur I now kinda see the the difference between an amended motion and a new one. I was kinda thinking that it was distinction without a difference but now I know!  Thanks!

[Guest Bdw2003]

I think I see where Tomm's getting confused.

Under normal RONR, without the organization's three reading rule, I believe it would be a pending main motion, or a pending main motion as amended, until it is finally adopted by the required vote.

Given that their own rule to finally adopt it requires more than what RONR would, I think the real question is does their rule required to adopt it start the number of readings over again if the main motion is amended after the first or second reading before finally adopted. In other words, if it is passed twice, then an amendment is made, does the motion as amended have to now be passed three times? The rule doesn't specify.

Regardless, whether ian amendment starts the number of readings required over again or not, it is still a pending main motion as amended and would not be considered a new main motion as long as it hadn't been made final...and it couldn't be made final until after the three readings.

Does that make sense?

 

 

[Guest Puzzling]

7 hours ago, Tomm said:

Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board

I had hoped on something more clear.(and useful)

Does this really apply to all motions, not just  to main motions? Or is there an understanding that for all other motions the rule is waived by unanimous consent.  

A 1/3 minority can  block anything just make an appeal (incidental motion) and that will stop  the motion for 2 more readings (readings of the appeal) 

This rule needs a proper rewrite.

 

 

 

 

[Tomm]

It applies to all motions, but the Board does meet twice a month. If they want to implement a motion right away they simply vote to waive the three readings!

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Tomm said:

Here's the rule:

At least seven (7) days prior to all Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, an agenda, subject to amendment, shall be posted in XXXX Facilities and/or on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxxx.org). Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by a two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6). As soon as practicable, a brief summary of the preceding Board meeting shall be posted on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxx.org). After approved by the Board, minutes of Board meetings, excluding Executive Sessions, will be available on the XXXX website (www.xxxxxxx.org) or to Members in good standing at no cost upon request at the Corporate Office.

 

How has your Board interpreted this portion which I have bolded, especially the part that I have italicized. I can't imagine that it is taken literally. 

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Tomm said:

It applies to all motions, but the Board does meet twice a month. If they want to implement a motion right away they simply vote to waive the three readings!

I strongly suspect the rule only applies to main motions. Surely if a motion to recess or adjourn is made, you don't read this motion at three consecutive meetings.

If it was in fact correct that the rule applied to all motions, then that would make this entire discussion moot, since the motion to Amend is a motion, but I expect this would cause a number of other problems for the board.

Edited February 3, 2021 at 01:26 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Puzzling]

23 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

How has your Board interpreted this portion which I have bolded, especially the part that I have italicized. I can't imagine that it is taken literally.

Not even sure what is an special session.

Guess the writers of this article thought that RONR would regulate what is missing.(or maybe they would some time make rules of order that would give the details)

Supposedly it is only about (substantial,  not incidental) main motions. 

And then it needs to prescribe what can be done at the first,second and third reading and what happens when this rule is broken.

I would see the first reading stage as giving notice. Debate and amendment is maybe possible during this stage the motion can be adopted or rejected by a 2/3 vote (except if the motion needs notice according to RONR) 

Second reading stage  , all germane motions can be applied (including motions that change the intent), during this stage the motion can again be adopted or rejected by a 2/3 vote

Third reading only approve or reject the motion, if other secondary motions are adopted then at the next meeting  the second reading stage is applicable.

But this all should be spelled out in the bylaws. (Or at least a special rule or order)

[Tomm]

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I strongly suspect the rule only applies to main motions. Surely if a motion to recess or adjourn is made, you don't read this motion at three consecutive meetings.

WOW! I didn't think of that! 

I guess if you're a textualist the statutory interpretation of "Motions made in Board meetings..." doesn't really differentiate between the types of motions!?!?!?

Would adding the term "Main Motion" be sufficient enough to correct that Bylaw and eliminate the confusion with every other type of motion?

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Tomm said:

WOW! I didn't think of that! 

I guess if you're a textualist the statutory interpretation of "Motions made in Board meetings..." doesn't really differentiate between the types of motions!?!?!?

Would adding the term "Main Motion" be sufficient enough to correct that Bylaw and eliminate the confusion with every other type of motion?

I think the society should think carefully about whether it needs to keep this rule and, if it does, it would be advisable to make a number of clarifications regarding the rule. Certainly using the term "main motion" rather than "motion" would be a good start. (It might be desirable to limit it further.)

As Mr. Honemann has noted, some attention should perhaps also be given to the "and passed" portion of the rule. In addition, I would note that (although this was presumably the intent) the rule does not actually specify that the readings happen at each of three consecutive meetings. Finally, some rules pertaining to amendments may be desirable, to answer the question you originally raised.

Edited February 4, 2021 at 01:30 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Puzzling]

The rule really needs a rewrite, even my earlier post does not address all problems. 

Some problems:

- Amendments should be permitted at any stage (fundamental principle of parliamentary law) but you can decide that then the motion  after adoption not be adapted by a majority.

- what about main motions that require a 2/3 majority for adaptation 

- what about motions that require previous notion.

- how does this go with the order of business

- what about a vote of the majority of the membership. (In small boards more likely than a 2/3 vote)

And so on 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

Perhaps this is the right time for the assembly to consider why it has this three reading rule. Is it to provide previous notice? Is it to ensure that hasty decisions are avoided? Is it because attendance is sporadic so this is a mechanism to ensure that as many members as possible participate in (or are just aware) consideration of the motion? Some other reason other than "we've always done it this way"?

Then you can properly consider whether the problem that this rule solves is still a problem and, if so, whether there is a better solution.