Is it correct to have a main motion with different possible options?

[Dr. John]

While most main motions are pretty cut-and-dry, "Whereas X, Therefore be it resolved that Y"... is it correct, and if so what would be the format to have a motion that gives various options.

Say for example, a member wants to bring a motion on a procedural matter with different options.  Would it be correct to say something to the effect of:

"Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board adopts one of the following procedures

Option A:  Procedure ABC

OR

Option B:  Procedure DEF

OR 

Option C:  No change to the procedure."

Or is it wiser to go with one specific option, then debate and amend the motion based on how discussion goes? Ie.  "Therefore adopt Procedure ABC DEF".

 

[Josh Martin]

Just now, Dr. John said:

Say for example, a member wants to bring a motion on a procedural matter with different options.  Would it be correct to say something to the effect of:

"Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board adopts one of the following procedures

Option A:  Procedure ABC

OR

Option B:  Procedure DEF

OR 

Option 😄 No change to the procedure."

No.

1 minute ago, Dr. John said:

Or is it wiser to go with one specific option, then debate and amend the motion based on how discussion goes? Ie.  "Therefore adopt Procedure ABC DEF".

It is not just wiser. It is generally the only correct procedure. It should also be noted that the assembly is not limited to the options described above, which is one reason the procedure described above is improper.

There is also the procedure of "filling blanks," which is used for simple items such as amounts of money, names, places, colors, etc. I take it the items described here are not of such a nature. Even in such a case, however, there would be no "No change" option. Rather, a vote would first be taken on which suggestion would fill the blank, voting on each in a logical order until one receives a majority. Debate and amendment would then be in order on the motion as it then reads, and a final vote would be taken on the motion.

[Dr. John]

Thanks Josh for the clear and concise answer.

No wonder I could not find any substantive examples of "motions with options" through Internet searches, it clearly is not the way to go about things.  

This is definitely not a fill-in-the-blank matter, so I will just recommend what appears to be the best option and see how the debate goes.

 

Edited March 6, 2021 at 09:02 PM by Dr. John

[Joshua Katz]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

It is not just wiser. It is generally the only correct procedure. It should also be noted that the assembly is not limited to the options described above, which is one reason the procedure described above is improper.

 

I agree, but I would say - it's not only the correct procedure, but it's also generally wiser. Note that the desire for different options can be met by a sequence of amendments. The effect of that, instead of presenting different options up front, is that debate remains focused on a discrete question at each moment.

[Atul Kapur]

I am of the opinion(in the minority on this forum) that, depending on the complexity of the procedures, filling a blank may be appropriate. However, you have said it is definitely not so I won't pursue it in your situation.

Another option is to move that the discussion of the subject of the procedure to be followed be dealt with in committee of the whole, quasi committee of the whole or informally (depending on the size of your assembly). See Section 52 and particularly 52:28 for more information.

[Dr. John]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I agree, but I would say - it's not only the correct procedure, but it's also generally wiser. Note that the desire for different options can be met by a sequence of amendments. The effect of that, instead of presenting different options up front, is that debate remains focused on a discrete question at each moment.

I do agree.  It is also better from the mover's perspective in that there might be more attraction to the singular proposition rather than having a "menu" to try and decide over.

43 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I am of the opinion(in the minority on this forum) that, depending on the complexity of the procedures, filling a blank may be appropriate. However, you have said it is definitely not so I won't pursue it in your situation.

Another option is to move that the discussion of the subject of the procedure to be followed be dealt with in committee of the whole, quasi committee of the whole or informally (depending on the size of your assembly). See Section 52 and particularly 52:28 for more information.

Thanks, we have never really had a COTW and past procedural changes have been dealt with by motion.  For this particular assembly, it's best to keep things simple... which is something I should have thought of before posing the question!

[J. J.]

20 hours ago, Dr. John said:

Option 😄 No change to the procedure.

 

 

Option C is the same as defeating the motion, so this would be out of order.

I am in agreement, to an extent, with Dr. Kapur.  It might necessary to suspend the rules, but in some cases, more than two options might be considered.  It might actually work out better for the assembly, depending on the issue. 

[Rob Elsman]

Filling a blank has nothing to do with serving up what amounts to multiple main motions simultaneously, which violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.  The first lesson to learn when studying parliamentary procedure is that only one main motion can be pending at a time.

Experience with this forum shows that this kind of "flat" consideration of multiple solutions to the same problem is the direct result of members of organizations not understanding the basic notions of ranked motions and the order of precedence.

[Atul Kapur]

When you get beyond Lesson One and move on to a more advanced understanding 😀, note that 12:92 says "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."

In this situation, the question would be, "What procedure will we choose to follow?" and there are multiple options (or "alternative choices"). As Dr. John as stated, the options include A (procedure ABC) and B (procedure DEF). Option C (no change) would be achieved by defeating the motion.

[Josh Martin]

16 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

When you get beyond Lesson One and move on to a more advanced understanding 😀, note that 12:92 says "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."

In this situation, the question would be, "What procedure will we choose to follow?" and there are multiple options (or "alternative choices"). As Dr. John as stated, the options include A (procedure ABC) and B (procedure DEF). Option C (no change) would be achieved by defeating the motion.

Yes, but RONR (12th ed.) 12:92 says "Among cases adapted to such treatment are main motions or primary amendments containing names of persons or places, dates, numbers, or amounts." Given the wording "Among cases..." it seems clear that this is not an exhaustive list, but it also seems to me that the procedure is limited to other items which are similar in kind. Since we have no idea what procedure ABC and procedure DEF are, we don't know whether this is a situation where the device of filling blanks would be appropriate, although I would generally hazard a guess that it is not a situation where it is appropriate. The OP (who actually knows what the procedures are) also seems to think it is not a situation where filling blanks would be appropriate.

Edited March 7, 2021 at 06:38 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

There does seem to be a lot of confusion on this forum about the proper use of the device, Filling Blanks.  It is not intended to be an end run around the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time.  A closer reading of RONR (12th ed.) 12:107-113 will illuminate what kinds of "specifications" are proper for blanks to be filled.

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The OP (who actually knows what the procedures are) also seems to think it is not a situation where filling blanks would be appropriate.

Which I acknowledged in my first post on this thread and was the reason I had no intention to pursue the matter. However, the subsequent discussion "dragged me back in".

[Guest Zev]

Do I understand correctly that if my motion instructed a subordinate board to fix problem so-and-so and then report back to this assembly what action they took, that such a motion would be acceptable, but if my motion indicated for them to select one of options A, B, or C and then report back their action that such a motion is improper? Please indicate the paragraph number that tells me this. I might be concerned about whether it is wise or not at a future time, preferably after some debate, but at this moment I am concerned whether such a motion is a legitimate motion and what stops the chairman from putting the question.

[Josh Martin]

38 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Do I understand correctly that if my motion instructed a subordinate board to fix problem so-and-so and then report back to this assembly what action they took, that such a motion would be acceptable, but if my motion indicated for them to select one of options A, B, or C and then report back their action that such a motion is improper? Please indicate the paragraph number that tells me this. I might be concerned about whether it is wise or not at a future time, preferably after some debate, but at this moment I am concerned whether such a motion is a legitimate motion and what stops the chairman from putting the question.

I was not under the impression that the motion was being made as an instruction to a subordinate board. My understanding was that the motion was being offered at a board meeting, with the intent that members would then vote for Option A, Option B, or Option C (which is "no change").

I am in agreement that if the motion is instead a motion to instruct the board, that is a very different matter and I am not aware of any rule which would prevent this.

Edited March 8, 2021 at 05:31 AM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

18 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I was not under the impression that the motion was being made as an instruction to a subordinate board. My understanding was that the motion was being offered at a board meeting, with the intent that members would then vote for Option A, Option B, or Option C (which is "no change").

OK, let's suppose that this is the case. I still do not see why the membership cannot consider such a motion. The real problem in my estimation is what happens if the membership votes and one option receives a plurality but not a majority of votes. Whoever contemplates submitting such a question must have a contingency plan for such an event.  

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I still do not see why the membership cannot consider such a motion.

Because that is simply not how motions work under the common parliamentary law.

The original proposal is that:

"Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board adopts one of the following procedures

Option A:  Procedure ABC

OR

Option B:  Procedure DEF

OR

Option C No change to the procedure."

As Mr. Elsman has noted, this is a violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion may be pending at a time. This proposal violates that by asking members to decide between two competing main motions rather than having a single main motion pending, which is subject to debate and amendment. It also improperly attempts to limit the assembly to considering only these options, when in actuality the assembly may prefer to adopt a different option, or perhaps one of the two options proposed with slight modifications.

As has been previously noted, there is the tool of filling blanks. Based upon the facts presented and the opinion of the original poster, it would seem the tool of filling blanks is not appropriate here, and even if it was, it doesn't work quite the way this proposal is set up. Rather, members would vote on which option to fill the blank, and then further debate and amendment on the main motion would be in order.

Edited March 9, 2021 at 02:58 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

14 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

As Mr. Elsman has noted, this is a violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion may be pending at a time. This proposal violates that by asking members to decide between two competing main motions rather than having a single main motion pending, which is subject to debate and amendment. It also improperly attempts to limit the assembly to considering only these options, when in actuality the assembly may prefer to adopt a different option, or perhaps one of the two options proposed with slight modifications.

 

I question if this would violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law (FPPL) of one question at a time.

Each proposal could be separately debated and amended. Then, at the end of that process, when each as been put in a form for a final vote, the vote is taken on each option.  I would say that the rules could be suspended to permit a vote on several options to be taken at the same time. 

In this example Policy ABC would be considered, fully.  At the point where Policy ABC is at a state where it is ready for a vote, the assembly would consider Policy DEF.  When Policy DEF is ready for a vote, the assembly would consider Policy GHI.  When Policy GHI is ready for a vote, the chair will put the question on each policy until one gets a majority.  If none get a majority, no policy is adopted. 

The assembly is considering each policy separately, in terms debate and amendment.  I am of the opinion that the rules could be suspended to handle this process, without running afoul of any FPPL.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm happy to note that Dr. John has clearly been able to separate the wheat from the chaff when considering the responses posted here. 

[Dr. John]

I was surprised to see this thread still going... despite the debate, I still favour the opinion that a "motion option"... at least in this case, would be out of order.  Bear with me as I am still green in RONR, but in effect such a motion creates multiple questions on one matter.... hence a simple question on whether to adopt (in this example) procedure ABC would be in order.

If the assembly through debate thought DEF was the way to go, then ABC could be struck out and the motion could be amended accordingly or if through debate it was determined no change was preferable, the motion simply gets defeated.

[Guest Puzzling]

1 hour ago, J. J. said:

In this example Policy ABC would be considered, fully.  At the point where Policy ABC is at a state where it is ready for a vote, the assembly would consider Policy DEF.  When Policy DEF is ready for a vote, the assembly would consider Policy GHI.  When Policy GHI is ready for a vote, the chair will put the question on each policy until one gets a majority.  If none get a majority, no policy is adopted. 

The problem is that it is likely that none will get a majority. This is possible even if all members prefer all options above the present situation.

 

[Dan Honemann]

24 minutes ago, Dr. John said:

I was surprised to see this thread still going... despite the debate, I still favour the opinion that a "motion option"... at least in this case, would be out of order.  Bear with me as I am still green in RONR, but in effect such a motion creates multiple questions on one matter.... hence a simple question on whether to adopt (in this example) procedure ABC would be in order.

If the assembly through debate thought DEF was the way to go, then ABC could be struck out and the motion could be amended accordingly or if through debate it was determined no change was preferable, the motion simply gets defeated.

Of course you were surprised to see this thread still going on - it shouldn't be.  As I think you recognized at the time, the first response was all that was needed.  

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

The problem is that it is likely that none will get a majority. This is possible even if all members prefer all options above the present situation.

 

You could have the same problem filling blanks.  No option may get a majority.

[Guest Zev]

The original question was whether the assembly could adopt a motion that would give the board of directors several choices as to how to deal with a particular problem. I must confess that I was astonished to read suggestions that somehow such a motion would violate the fundamental principles of parliamentary law or the suggestion that the motion itself was out of order. One of the examples in the book tells us about the requirement of germaneness (12:19) in regard to amendments, however, giving several unrelated options to the subordinate board in no way violates this rule. Let us not be confused about the requirement for germaneness and what main motions may or may not contain. Are we not told that main resolutions may contain several  unrelated parts to it? (10:25) An entry in the index under "resolutions, series in single motion" is right there on page 702. Had the motion instructed the board to carry out simultaneous instructions that were mutually exclusive then that would be a problem. However, the board is being instructed to carry out one of them and not all of them. Besides, if the board does not like the choices offered, they can always report to the assembly that they desire different instructions and even suggest what they think is the proper way of dealing with the problem. And the entire cycle would start all over again. So, what did I miss?

[Guest Puzzling]

After more thinking I more and more agree that a motion with different options (other than small changes as described in filling blanks ) is against a fundamental principle of parliamentary law., because it makes the whole debate confusing and disallows other options. 

RONR is to guide debate and the process of making a decision into a clear and efficient way. Discussing different options as proposed muddles the way and is therefore against a fundamental principle.

The proper procedure would be. (outline only)

Main motion the option the maker of the motion prefers (A)

Primary amendments to improve it

Primary amendment by member prefering option B

Secondary amendments to improve option B

Vote between option A and B

Primary amendments Improving chosen option

Primary amendment by member prefers option C

Secondary amendments to improve option C 

And so on.

The big reason for this is that it is a clear and easy path. 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

After more thinking I more and more agree that a motion with different options (other than small changes as described in filling blanks ) is against a fundamental principle of parliamentary law., because it makes the whole debate confusing and disallows other options. 

RONR is to guide debate and the process of making a decision into a clear and efficient way. Discussing different options as proposed muddles the way and is therefore against a fundamental principle.

The proper procedure would be. (outline only)

Main motion the option the maker of the motion prefers (A)

Primary amendments to improve it

Primary amendment by member prefering option B

Secondary amendments to improve option B

Vote between option A and B

Primary amendments Improving chosen option

Primary amendment by member prefers option C

Secondary amendments to improve option C 

And so on.

The big reason for this is that it is a clear and easy path. 

But not, I'm afraid, in the manner in which you have described it.  🙂