Failed substitute motion

[TBear76]

Wrestling with this one... 

If a motion to amend by substitution is adopted and then the substitute motion itself is not adopted, what is the status of the original motion that was replaced? Can it be renewed in that same meeting? 

Using the RONR example as the example. 

Original motion is to construct a new service wing for the Parish House

Sub motion is to hire consultants instead. 

Assume the motion to sub is successful but the substituted motion to hire consultants fails. 

Can someone again move the original main motion to construct the new service wing?

I will offer my thought that I think it cannot be brought up again as it is part and parcel so to speak of one entire motion that failed and therefore cannot be renewed at that same meeting. 

Edited May 12, 2021 at 05:57 PM by TBear76

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, TBear76 said:

I will offer my thought that I think it cannot be brought up again as it is part and parcel so to speak of one entire motion that failed and therefore cannot be renewed at that same meeting. 

I concur with that thought. I think it falls squarely within the provisions of 8:15, barring renewal "the same or substantially the same question" at the same meeting. The fact that the original motion was amended does not alter the prohibition, regardless of how it was amended.

[Rob Elsman]

No. When the assembly adopted the motion to amend by substitution, it effectively decided not to do what the original main motion proposed.

The motion to amend can be rejected upon reconsideration, after which the original main motion can be adopted, if that is what the assembly wants to do.

[Weldon Merritt]

10 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

No. When the assembly adopted the motion to amend by substitution, it effectively decided not to do what the original main motion proposed.

The motion to amend can be rejected upon reconsideration, after which the original main motion can be adopted, if that is what the assembly wants to do.

I concur. While I correctly said that the motion can't be renewed, I failed to note that it can be reconsidered. 

[TBear76]

Thank you both. That is very helpful!!

[Dan Honemann]

21 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

No. When the assembly adopted the motion to amend by substitution, it effectively decided not to do what the original main motion proposed.

The motion to amend can be rejected upon reconsideration, after which the original main motion can be adopted, if that is what the assembly wants to do.

I gather that TBear76 wants us to use the exact example in 12:82-89, assuming that the motion to substitute was adopted and then assuming that the main motion. as amended, was defeated.

If this is the case, I don't think that it is precisely correct to say that "When the assembly adopted the motion to amend by substitution, it effectively decided not to do what the original main motion proposed." The original main motion proposed "That the Parish Federation undertake the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House, to be financed as far as possible by a mortgage on the present building.” The substitute that was adopted was a substitute for the main motion as amended, which was "That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House.” 

So when you say that "The motion to amend can be rejected upon reconsideration, after which the original main motion can be adopted", how, exactly, would you phrase the motion to reconsider?

 

[Rob Elsman]

Given the facts provided by the original poster:

"Mr. President, I move to reconsider the main motion [recites the main motion, as amended] and the motion to amend by substitute, [recites the motion to amend by striking out and inserting one or more paragraphs]."

It would not be proper to move to reconsider the main motion, as unamended, and the motion to amend by substitute.  The main motion, as unamended, was not put to a vote; however, by deciding to adopt the motion to amend by substitute, the assembly had--by replacing the first version of the main motion with a second version--effectively decided not to do what the first version proposed.

Should it be the case that the motion to amend by substitute is rejected upon reconsideration, the chair states that, "The question recurs on the adoption of the main motion, [recites the main motion, as unamended]."

[Guest Zev]

25 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

"Mr. President, I move to reconsider the main motion [recites the main motion, as amended] and the motion to amend by substitute, [recites the motion to amend by striking out and inserting one or more paragraphs]."

You forgot to indicate how you voted for the substitute.

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Given the facts provided by the original poster:

"Mr. President, I move to reconsider the main motion [recites the main motion, as amended] and the motion to amend by substitute, [recites the motion to amend by striking out and inserting one or more paragraphs]."

It would not be proper to move to reconsider the main motion, as unamended, and the motion to amend by substitute.  The main motion, as unamended, was not put to a vote; however, by deciding to adopt the motion to amend by substitute, the assembly had--by replacing the first version of the main motion with a second version--effectively decided not to do what the first version proposed.

Should it be the case that the motion to amend by substitute is rejected upon reconsideration, the chair states that, "The question recurs on the adoption of the main motion, [recites the main motion, as unamended]."

I doubt that Mr. Merritt will agree. I certainly do not.

If a motion is made to reconsider the votes on the main motion (which was rejected) and on the motion to substitute (which was adopted), and this motion to reconsider is adopted, the question will recur on the motion to substitute as described in 12:88. If this motion is then rejected, the question will then recur on the pending main motion as then amended, which was "That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House.” This is not the original main motion, which was "That the Parish Federation undertake the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House, to be financed as far as possible by a mortgage on the present building.”

[Rob Elsman]

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Given the facts provided by the original poster:...

My sense of it is that the case in the book is not the same as that provided by the original poster.

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/12/2021 at 1:51 PM, TBear76 said:

Using the RONR example as the example. 

It seems that this is what was intended, which is why I prefaced my question with the statement that "I gather that TBear76 wants us to use the exact example in 12:82-89, assuming that the motion to substitute was adopted and then assuming that the main motion. as amended, was defeated."

 

[Weldon Merritt]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I doubt that Mr. Merritt will agree. I certainly do not.

I confess that I haven't kept up with this thread. I might need to think about it a while.

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I doubt that Mr. Merritt will agree. I certainly do not.

 

6 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

I confess that I haven't kept up with this thread. I might need to think about it a while.

As you may have noted, it turns out that Mr. Elsman and I don't really disagree at all, we were simply answering different questions. Not an unusual event in this forum. 🙂

 

[Rob Elsman]

I apologize, Mr. Honemann.  My intention was to avoid adding a note of confusion by inserting a different parliamentary situation into this thread.  The result seems to have been exactly the opposite of what I intended.  You and I do not disagree at all on the nuts and bolts.

[Weldon Merritt]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

As you may have noted, it turns out that Mr. Elsman and I don't really disagree at all, we were simply answering different questions. Not an unusual event in this forum. 🙂

 

Well if the two of you agree, who am I to disagree?😀

[Dan Honemann]

A couple of things continue to interest me about this, however, which may (or may not) be worth mentioning.

First of all, looking at the example in 12:82-90, it seems to me that MEMBER X got away with moving what really amounted to a motion to substitute (which would not have been in order) by phrasing it in the form of a motion to amend by striking out and inserting words. As a consequence, when the assembly finally got around to voting on MEMBER A's motion to substitute, it was a motion to substitute MEMBER A's motion for a motion which was quite different from the originally moved main motion. 

The originally moved main motion was a motion (call this Motion X) "That the Parish Federation undertake the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House, to be financed as far as possible by a mortgage on the present building.” Member A's motion to substitute, as finally voted on, was a motion (call this Motion Y) to substitute "That the Parish Board be directed to engage appropriate professional consultants to make a survey of, and prepare a complete report on, the need, probable cost, feasible methods of financing, and maintenance of a new service wing for the Parish House within sixty days.” for the main motion as amended (call this Motion Z) "That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House.”  It seems to me that there is a substantial difference between all three of these motions. 

As a consequence, I am not at all sure that, if the motion to substitute (Motion Y) is adopted, and then the main motion (Motion Z) is defeated, members will be precluded from moving the adoption of a motion substantially the same as Motion X.

Got that?  

 

[Atul Kapur]

10 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

it seems to me that MEMBER X got away with moving what really amounted to a motion to substitute (which would not have been in order) by phrasing it in the form of a motion to amend by striking out and inserting words.

The point is not well taken as it was not raised in a timely manner, i.e. before the proofs were returned to the publisher. 😉

11 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As a consequence, I am not at all sure that, if the motion to substitute (Motion Y) is adopted, and then the main motion (Motion Z) is defeated, members will be precluded from moving the adoption of a motion substantially the same as Motion X.

But by amending Motion X to Member X's Motion Z, I believe that the assembly cast their judgement on Motion X.

"It should be noted that a vote in favor of a substitute for an entire resolution" [in this case, Member X's Motion Z] "is ordinarily a vote to kill any provisions of the original version" [Motion X] "that are not included in the substitute." 12:80  

So I would suggest that Motion X cannot be renewed but, rather, would have to return by way of a reconsideration of X, Z, and Y (I think I have that in the correct order). 

I blame any errors on the late hour. 

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

So I would suggest that Motion X cannot be renewed but, rather, would have to return by way of a reconsideration of X, Z, and Y (I think I have that in the correct order). 

Is it not true that I also must have voted in favor of motions Z and Y, and indicate explicitly that I have done so, to qualify as an allowed mover of the motion to reconsider in order to get back to motion X?

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Is it not true that I also must have voted in favor of motions Z and Y, and indicate explicitly that I have done so, to qualify as an allowed mover of the motion to reconsider in order to get back to motion X?

No. A member making a motion to reconsider the votes on two or more connected motions need only to have voted on the prevailing side when the vote was taken on the motion which will be reconsidered first if reconsideration takes place.  RONR, 12th ed., 37:30

 

5 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

But by amending Motion X to Member X's Motion Z, I believe that the assembly cast their judgement on Motion X.

"It should be noted that a vote in favor of a substitute for an entire resolution" [in this case, Member X's Motion Z] "is ordinarily a vote to kill any provisions of the original version" [Motion X] "that are not included in the substitute." 12:80 

But as has been noted, MEMBER X's motion was neither phrased as nor treated as a motion to substitute, so why should we pay any attention to this observation in 12:80?

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

So I would suggest that Motion X cannot be renewed but, rather, would have to return by way of a reconsideration of X, Z, and Y (I think I have that in the correct order). 

I blame any errors on the late hour. 

Well, I suspect that the first vote to be reconsidered should be the vote taken on Motion Z (it's early morning now), and I'll admit that I don't really think that motion X can be renewed during the same session in which this all went down if the final vote on the main motion as amended is rejected, but in any event, I'll ask once again the question which I asked in my original response -- how, exactly, would you phrase this motion to reconsider? I ask this question simply because I think that whoever it is who would be able to properly phrase such a motion before the session ended would have to be a lot smarter than I am.  

[Rob Elsman]

Because I am all tied up in my "A"s, "X"s, "Y"s, and "Z"s, I am not able to give an answer that would make any sense.  Offhand, though, I cannot figure out what the problem is in properly making the motion to reconsider.  Each motion proposed to be reconsidered should be stated in the form in which it was finally put to a vote.

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Because I am all tied up in my "A"s, "X"s, "Y"s, and "Z"s, I am not able to give an answer that would make any sense.  Offhand, though, I cannot figure out what the problem is in properly making the motion to reconsider.  Each motion proposed to be reconsidered should be stated in the form in which it was finally put to a vote.

No cop outs allowed.  🙂

You are at a meeting at which the events described in 12:82-88 occur, the motion to substitute which is put to a vote as described in 12:88 is adopted, and then the main motion, as thus amended, is defeated. You've changed your mind and are now in favor of the motion as originally made and thus want to move to reconsider whatever votes need to be reconsidered in order to get back to being able to salvage the motion as originally made (you voted in favor of MEMBER X's motion to amend it as described in 12:83, which was adopted).

How, exactly, do you word your motion to reconsider to accomplish this purpose?  TBear76 and others all apparently agree that the motion as originally made can't be renewed, but some have suggested that the same result can be obtained by use of the motion to Reconsider. 

[Rob Elsman]

Ok--no cop out (just for you, and wait till you see my invoice 😉).

In the example found at 12:83ff:

Assuming that the motion to Amend by substitute, as amended, was adopted; and, the resolution, as amended, as amended by substitute, as amended, was rejected, a member who voted in favor of the motion to Amend by substitute, as amended, will make the motion, "Mr. President, I move to Reconsider the rejected resolution, as amended, as amended by substitute, as amended, 'Resolved, That the Parish Board be directed to engage appropriate professional consultants to make a survey of, and prepare a complete report on, the need, probable cost, feasible methods of financing and maintenance of a new service wing for the Parish House within sixty days'; also, the motion to Amend the [ ] resolution, as amended, as amended by substitute, as amended, 'to substitute for the [ ] resolution (as first offered), 'Resolved, That the Parish Board be directed to engage appropriate professional consultants to make a survey of, and prepare a complete report on, the need, probable cost, feasible methods of financing and maintenance of a new service wing for the Parish House within sixty days'."

Assuming the motion to Reconsider is adopted, the question recurs on the adoption of the motion to Amend by substitute, as amended.

Assuming the motion to Amend by substitute, as amended, is rejected upon reconsideration, the question recurs on the resolution, as amended, "Resolved, That the Parish Federation undertake a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House."

At this point, a member who voted in favor of the motion to amend the resolution by striking out and inserting words can make a motion: "Mr. President, I move to Reconsider the motion to amend the [ ] resolution, 'by striking out everything after the word "undertake" and inserting the words "a campaign to raise funds for the construction and equipping of a new service wing for the Parish House"'".

Assuming the motion to Reconsider is adopted, the question recurs on the motion to amend the resolution by striking out and inserting words.

Assuming the motion to amend by striking out and inserting words is rejected upon reconsideration, the question recurs on the resolution in the version that was first offered.

Edited May 16, 2021 at 01:48 AM by Rob Elsman

[Guest Zev]

I'm going to throw my lot in with Mr. Elsman. If his explanation is not entirely correct then I will not mind being schooled since in the end I will benefit from whatever that explanation happens to be.

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I'm going to throw my lot in with Mr. Elsman.

Always a good idea, and thanks for volunteering to take care of his invoice.  🙂 

[Dan Honemann]

So I'm at a meeting at which the events described in 12:82-88 occur, the motion to substitute which is put to a vote as described in 12:88 is adopted, and then the resolution, as thus amended, is defeated. I've changed my mind and am now in favor of the resolution as originally moved and thus want to move to reconsider whatever votes need to be reconsidered in order to get back to being able to salvage the resolution as originally moved (I voted in favor of Member X's motion to amend it as described in 12:83, which was adopted).

I think what I should do is to make one single motion to reconsider three votes, namely the vote which was finally taken on the resolution, the vote which was taken on the motion to substitute (a primary amendment), and the vote which was taken on Member X's motion to amend the resolution as originally moved (a secondary amendment). If my motion to reconsider is adopted, the question will then recur on Member X's motion to amend the resolution as originally moved. If this motion is rejected, as I think it would be since my motion to reconsider the vote on it was adopted, the question will then recur on the proposed substitute, as amended, which presumably will also be rejected, and then the resolution as originally moved can be adopted.