? Reference for : A member is not permitted to speak against his or her own motion.

[Guest Julie Robison]

Hello -- Can anyone tell me the exact reference in Robert's Rules of Order for "A member is not permitted to speak against his or her own motion," and what specific section I can find this reference?  Thank you!

[J. J.]

43:25

[Guest Puzzling]

20 hours ago, J. J. said:

43:25

Instead of speaking against his or her motion. The.maker may make a request to withdraw a motion see RONR 12th 33:11.

This can also be done after the motion is amended.

Sadly RONR prescribes that the original maker of the motion is mentioned in the minutes. (48:5 1) even if the maker disagrees with the final wording of the motion.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, Guest Puzzling, the wording of the minutes should also indicate that the motion was adopted after amendment.  This indicates that the maker of the main motion cannot be assessed responsibility for the final wording of the main motion.

[Guest Puzzling]

6 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Well, Guest Puzzling, the wording of the minutes should also indicate that the motion was adopted after amendment.  This indicates that the maker of the main motion cannot be assessed responsibility for the final wording of the main motion.

It would be better to indicate someone who can be assessed responsibility for the final wording of the main motion , when the maker disagrees with the final wording of the main motion. 

In most cases this would be the maker of the last  amendment disagreed by the last responsible maker

 

[Rob Elsman]

It is the majority of the assembly that is responsible for the final wording of the motion, not any individual member who may have made a motion to amend it; so, when the minutes memorialize the adoption of a main motion, responsibility for the consequences is assessed on the majority.  If it is particularly important to name the members of the majority individually (and it usually is not), a member can make a motion that the vote be taken by roll call.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

It is the majority of the assembly that is responsible for the final wording of the motion

Yes, but someone suggested that particular wording. Like it or not, members who read the minutes will frequently attribute the final wording of a motion to the member who made the original motion, without regard to (and usually without knowing) to what extent the original motion was amended.

There are various things that the member who made the original motion can do to express his displeasure with the final version of a motion and to have that displeasure somehow noted in the minutes. However, I do not have time at the moment to go into those options. However, one of them, to request permission to withdraw the motion, has already been mentioned.

Edited to add: upon further reflection and reviewing section 48:4, it appears  that a request to withdraw a motion should not be entered in the minutes. It is an incidental motion and I see nothing in RONR requiring that such a request to be in the minutes. Further, a motion which is actually withdrawn is normally not entered in the minutes. I suppose, however, that if the member who made the original motion requests permission to withdraw it and the permission is not granted, he could ask that his request to withdraw the motion be entered in the minutes. The assembly would be free to grant or deny that request.

Edited February 25, 2021 at 05:20 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Weldon Merritt]

51 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Like it or not, members who read the minutes will frequently attribute the final wording of a motion to the member who made the original motion, without regard to (and usually without knowing) to what extent the original motion was amended.

This is one of the reasons that I don't see the logic of requiring that the minutes include the name of the maker of the original motion be included. I know that's the rule. I just find no logical reason for it, especially when elsewhere we are told that once the motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the assembly, not the maker. 

[Joshua Katz]

I agree with Mr. Merritt. I would add that I do not see the logic in prohibiting a member from speaking against his own motion even after it has been amended. While it's true that he can signal his displeasure in other ways, the fact remains that, conceivably, he could be the only member opposed to the motion as amended - but that, if he could speak against it, he could persuade a majority to agree with him. Unlikely, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to try.

 

[Atul Kapur]

18 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

if he could speak against it, he could persuade a majority to agree with him. Unlikely, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to try.

The mover of the main motion had the chance to persuade the majority to agree with him. That was during the debate on the amendment.

[Joshua Katz]

11 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

The mover of the main motion had the chance to persuade the majority to agree with him. That was during the debate on the amendment.

The debate then was on whether or not to amend the motion. The debate later will be on whether or not to adopt the amended motion. 

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, but the mover (of the main motion) still had two chances to speak against the amendment that, presumably, caused them to change from supporting the main motion to opposing the main motion as amended. So there was an opportunity to try to "persuade a majority to agree with him."

I'm not necessarily arguing in support of the rule that the mover cannot speak against their motion, but applying the logic if you accept that it is the way it is.

[Joshua Katz]

I do not see those as the same arguments. One is comparing A to B, the other is arguing that, A aside, B is, in fact, bad.

[Richard Brown]

I have a problem with the rule in RONR which prohibits a member from speaking against his own motion even after it has been amended. I understand the rationale behind not permitting him to speak against his own motion initially, but if the motion gets amended in a way that he dislikes I believe he should be able to then speak against the adoption of the motion as amended. 

I understand what the rule actually says, I just disagree with it as far as not permitting the maker of a motion to speak against emotion once it has been amended.

As to whether the name of a member who originally makes a motion should be in the minutes, I see both sides of the argument has raised by Mr. Merritt, but I still prefer, all things considered, that the maker of the motion be named in the minutes.  I believe the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages.

 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

As to whether the name of a member who originally makes a motion should be in the minutes, I see both sides of the argument has raised by Mr. Merritt, but I still prefer, all things considered, that the maker of the motion be named in the minutes.  I believe the advantages of doing so outweigh the disadvantages.

Richard, I would be interested in knowing what advantages you see to including the name of the maker, and why you think they outweigh any disadvantages.

[Guest Puzzling]

53 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Richard, I would be interested in knowing what advantages you see to including the name of the maker, and why you think they outweigh any disadvantages.

 

I was planning to ask a similar question.

I can see an advantage in having a name of a member connected to a motion , but it should be a member who supports the final version of the motion. 

Was wondering  what happens in the same thing happens in Congress or are unfriendly amendments to laws not allowed there? 

[Shmuel Gerber]

7 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I agree with Mr. Merritt. I would add that I do not see the logic in prohibiting a member from speaking against his own motion even after it has been amended. While it's true that he can signal his displeasure in other ways, the fact remains that, conceivably, he could be the only member opposed to the motion as amended - but that, if he could speak against it, he could persuade a majority to agree with him. Unlikely, but I don't see why he shouldn't be allowed to try.

 

This thread is going off into all sorts of questions, but where does it say in RONR that a member is prohibited from speaking against the pending motion, when that motion results from amendments that were not agreed to by the maker of the motion?

I know that 43:25 has been interpreted that way, but presumably not by those who find such an interpretation unconscionable. 🙂

Edited to add: This is the language of 43:25: "Refraining from Speaking Against One’s Own Motion. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion."

Edited February 26, 2021 at 03:03 AM by Shmuel Gerber

[Joshua Katz]

What is the alternative interpretation? He remains the maker of the motion, does he not?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Just now, Joshua Katz said:

What is the alternative interpretation? He remains the maker of the motion, does he not?

If Mr. Dorsey moves "to commend Officer George …", I would not necessarily describe the pending motion "to censure Officer George…" as being "his own motion", nor would I say that Mr. Dorsey has "change[d] his mind while the motion he made is pending."

[Weldon Merritt]

10 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

If Mr. Dorsey moves "to commend Officer George …", I would not necessarily describe the pending motion "to censure Officer George…" as being "his own motion", nor would I say that Mr. Dorsey has "change[d] his mind while the motion he made is pending."

Neither would I, but I have long understood that the prohibition still applies after the motion has been amended (even adversely to the intent of the original mover). While I don't believe that is addressed by any of the Official Interpretations, I certainly have been under the impression that at least one of the authors (specifically, Mr. Honemann) held that view. Do I sense some disagreement among the A-team?

[Richard Brown]

Although I very much like the views that Mr. Gerber has expressed above, and hope that interpretation to be correct, I also agree with the comment by Mr. Merritt in the post immediately above.

[Rob Elsman]

There has to be a long history to the application of this rule.  What do the parliamentary precedents tell us?

[Shmuel Gerber]

8 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I would add that I do not see the logic in prohibiting a member from speaking against his own motion even after it has been amended.

 

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

What is the alternative interpretation? He remains the maker of the motion, does he not?

 

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I have a problem with the rule in RONR which prohibits a member from speaking against his own motion even after it has been amended.

You all seem to be saying that the pending motion as amended is still the maker's own motion but that there is no logic in preventing him from speaking against it, which you say is the rule because it actually is still his own motion. What I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. If being unable to speak against the pending motion is in your mind such an unconscionable rule because it's not actually his own motion, then don't interpret the rule against speaking against one's own motion to prohibit it.

However, I am not simply being sophistic about this; I do think it is reasonable to interpret the rule so as to allow the member who originally made the motion to speak against the amended form that he or she doesn't agree with.

[J. J.]

6 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

 

You all seem to be saying that the pending motion as amended is still the maker's own motion but that there is no logic in preventing him from speaking against it, which you say is the rule because it actually is still his own motion. What I'm saying is that you can't have it both ways. If being unable to speak against the pending motion is in your mind such an unconscionable rule because it's not actually his own motion, then don't interpret the rule against speaking against one's own motion to prohibit it.

However, I am not simply being sophistic about this; I do think it is reasonable to interpret the rule so as to allow the member who originally made the motion to speak against the amended form that he or she doesn't agree with.

I do like that interpretation.  It is certainly more logical. 

[Rob Elsman]

After a main motion has been amended, who must make or second a motion to Request Leave to Withdraw it?  Is it not still the maker of the main motion, even though the wording (and, possibly, the meaning) has been modified in such a way that the maker finds his main motion objectionable?  So, too--I would reason--the maker of a main motion may not speak in debate against an amended main motion that he originally made and now finds objectionable.

However, I beg and plead our high-powered gurus to research the precedents on this question.