Extreme Example

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Some problems:

- Amendments should be permitted at any stage (fundamental principle of parliamentary law)

I don't understand this part.

[Tomm]

This is a bylaw for the meetings of the Board. It was implemented when the Board decided to hold open meetings as a show of transparency. An agenda is published 7 days prior to the Board meeting publishing the main motions that will be presented.

At the meeting, prior to the chair presenting the motion to the Board, the Board allows for member comments (these members are the guests of the meeting. They are the general membership of the corporation and not members of the Board.)  The guests, who now have had previous notice of the pending motion, can speak to the Board with comments pro and con prior to the Board actually deliberating on the motion. 

There have been occasions where the comments  have caused the Board to reevaluate and amend the motion.  

[Richard Brown]

24 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I don't understand this part.

I don't, either.  I do not understandd it to be a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  Moreover, in bodies which require three "readings", such as legislative bodies, the first reading is frequently for information only (introduction of the motion)  and no action or amendments are permitted at that stage.  Referrals to committees and amendments are generally permitted at the second (and third) reading.  Final passage is generally not permitted until the third reading.  All readings must usually occur on separate days.   Each organization must promulgate its own rules regarding how the readings are handled and what can be done at each reading.  It is certainly beyond the scope of RONR.

Edited February 4, 2021 at 06:00 PM by Richard Brown
Added underlined portion of the 3rd sentence

[Guest Puzzling]

5 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

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.

The majority rules, that is why I think that even during the first reading / notification of motion amendments should be possible.

Also was puzzling what if there is a controversial subject is it possible or even efficient to have  2 notifications of motions one for and one against?

For example a motion to ratify the (unauthorized) buying of a laptop, and a motion to ask the buyer to pay for the laptop himself (or send it back)

This all in the situation that every main motion needs previous notice. 

[George Mervosh]

12 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The majority rules, that is why I think that even during the first reading / notification of motion amendments should be possible.

The ability to propose and adopt amendments may be restricted by the bylaws, by the adoption of a special rule of order, or simply by the adoption of a motion to suspend the rules (see 25:18).  There is no fundamental right to amend.

Edited February 4, 2021 at 09:37 PM by George Mervosh