Can a Chair Person determine that an amendment to a motion is a different motion?

[Guest nickginapic@yahoo.com]

For example the original motion is to sign a contract. The amendment is to hold a public hearing. Can the chair determine the question of a public hearing will be addressed after the question of signing the contract has a vote?

[Richard Brown]

Is the requested public hearing related at all to the contract? If not, then the amendment is not germane to the original motion and is out of order until the motion regarding the contract is dealt with. It may be made as a new motion once the motion regarding the contract has been dealt with, but the chair should not agree that it will be heard next. The person who wants to make the motion for a public hearing needs to try to obtain the floor just like any other member would. The chair should not tell him that they will take up his motion next.

Edited to add: if you believe the motion for a public hearing is related to the motion about signing the contract, please explain to us why you think it is germane and an appropriate amendment. If the proposed amendment is that a public hearing be held prior to a decision to sign the contract, then it probably is germane and would be an appropriate amendment. It depends on whether the proposed amendment to have a public hearing is related to signing the contract.

Edited April 4, 2021 at 02:00 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Guest Guest nickginapic@yahoo.co]

Amendment is for Public hearing before signing contract. However Public Hearing not required by law to sign contract. Being used as a way to stall signing contract.

[Guest Guest nickginapic@yahoo.co]

Motion made to sign contract. Amendment made to hold Public Hearing before signing contract. Public Hearing not required by law and is being used as a mechanism to stall signing contract.

[GinaD]

20 minutes ago, Guest Guest nickginapic@yahoo.co said:

 

 

[GinaD]

23 minutes ago, Guest Guest nickginapic@yahoo.co said:

Amendment is for Public hearing before signing contract. However Public Hearing not required by law to sign contract. Being used as a way to stall signing contract. Is there any way to deny the amendment?

 

[Rob Elsman]

I do not have enough facts to deal with this particular case, but, in general, the chair has the authority to rule that an amendment is not germane to the motion to which the amendment is being applied.  

[GinaD]

20 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

I do not have enough facts to deal with this particular case, but, in general, the chair has the authority to rule that an amendment is not germane to the motion to which the amendment is being applied.  

Mr. Elsman, The chair person makes a motion to sign a contract. There is a second, then open for discussion. During the discussion a board member indicates they want to amend the motion to have a public hearing before signing the contract. The person who made the motion, and the person who second the motion do not want to amend and want to move forward with the motion as it was initially proposed. Can chair person deny amendment? (Note: Public hearing not required by law to sign contract and is being used to stall voting on whether to sign.)

Edited April 4, 2021 at 03:27 AM by GinaD

[GinaD]

5 minutes ago, GinaD said:

 

 

Edited April 4, 2021 at 03:25 AM by GinaD

[Atul Kapur]

The question to be asked is whether the proposed amendment is germane to the main motion. The chair makes that determination, subject to being overruled by an appeal of the ruling in which case the meeting determines whether the amendment is germane. Based on what you've told us so far, if I were the chair I would have ruled that the amendment is germane.

15 hours ago, GinaD said:

The person who made the motion, and the person who second the motion do not want to amend

That is immaterial. The motion doesn't "belong" to either or both of them -- once it is stated by the chair and is under consideration, it "belongs" to the assembly. If he amendment is ruled germane and is stated by the chair, they can argue against the amendment.

15 hours ago, GinaD said:

Public hearing not required by law to sign contract and is being used to stall voting on whether to sign.

Unless a public hearing is prohibited by the law, then this is a legitimate tactic. And, or when our RONR says that you should not impugn the motives of other members so you should not state in debate what you think is their motive. Limit your remarks to the merits of the motion or, from what I gather from your comments, the lack thereof.

Edited April 4, 2021 at 07:09 PM by Atul Kapur
corrected dictation error as noted

[Richard Brown]

I I agree with Dr. Kapur. In my opinion, the proposed amendment was germane to the original motion and should have been allowed.  When the chair refused to permit the amendment, his ruling could have been appealed to the assembly. What happened does not constitute a continuing breach and it is therefore too late to do anything about it.

Note: since this appears to be a public body, there might well be state statutes or other controlling law which might have a bearing on the procedure. 

[GinaD]

6 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I I agree with Dr. Kapur. In my opinion, the proposed amendment was germane to the original motion and should have been allowed.  When the chair refused to permit the amendment, his ruling could have been appealed to the assembly. What happened does not constitute a continuing breach and it is therefore too late to do anything about it.

Note: since this appears to be a public body, there might well be state statutes or other controlling law which might have a bearing on the procedure. 

Thank you for your very thorough reply. 

Edited April 4, 2021 at 11:39 AM by GinaD

[GinaD]

7 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

The question to be asked is whether the proposed amendment is germane to the main motion. The chair makes that determination, subject to being overruled by an appeal of the ruling in which case the meeting determines whether the amendment is germane. Based on what you've told us so far, if I were the chair I would have ruled that the amendment is germane.

That is immaterial. The motion doesn't "belong" to either or both of them -- once it is stated by the chair and is under consideration, it "belongs" to the assembly. If he amendment is ruled germane and is stated by the chair, they can argue against the amendment.

Unless a public hearing is prohibited by the law, then this is a legitimate tactic. And, or when our says that you should not impugn the motives of other members so you should not state in debate what you think is their motive. Limit your remarks to the merits of the motion or, from what I gather from your comments, the lack thereof.

Thank you for your very thorough reply.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/3/2021 at 10:36 PM, Guest Guest nickginapic@yahoo.co said:

Motion made to sign contract. Amendment made to hold Public Hearing before signing contract. Public Hearing not required by law and is being used as a mechanism to stall signing contract.

That sounds like a germane amendment, to add a public hearing before signing the contract, but you'd need to be quite specific about what effect, if any, the public hearing was going to have.  If you simply add language for holding a meeting prior to signing, then no matter what happened at the meeting, when it was over the contract would be signed. 

It is non uncommon and not improper to amend things so as to delay their execution.

And although there is no parliamentary "trick" to forbid the amendment, the normal method to defeat it is to debate against it and vote it down.