Failed substitute motion

[Guest Zev]

Thank you ever so much for the comprehensive explanation.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Honemann, I would like to toy with your response, if you have the patience to stay with me.  In the process, I will be revising the example in the book to illustrate an interesting consequence of your response in another parliamentary situation.  Please bear that in mind.  Because it bends my mind, I am going to avoid all the "X"s, "Y"s, and "Z"s.

Suppose I am a member who, in the first instance, am mildly agreeable to the resolution in its original version.  Further, suppose I am very strongly opposed to the motion to substitute.  Further, suppose I am mildly agreeable to the secondary amendment to strike out and insert words in the resolution, since it seems to be a "middle path" to avoid doing what the primary amendment to substitute proposes.

Now, suppose that the secondary amendment is adopted and the primary amendment to substitute is rejected.  Further, suppose that the resolution, as amended, is adopted.

Now, suppose that, after the adoption of the resolution, as amended, I have a reasonable basis for changing my mind about the advisability of doing what the amended resolution proposes.  I still strongly oppose what the motion to substitute proposed, but I would still be agreeable to do what the resolution in its original version proposed.

What you, Mr. Honemann, seem to me to be saying (and I don't want to put words in your mouth!) is that I must move to reconsider the resolution, as amended, and the detested motion to substitute in order to move reconsideration of the secondary amendment in hopes that the secondary amendment will be rejected upon reconsideration and the primary amendment to substitute will be rejected.

That strikes me as a risky course of action.  On the one hand, I want to get to a consideration of the resolution in its original form; on the other hand, I have to open up a Pandora's box and risk having the substitute adopted.  That puts me in a very difficult situation.  Is there no way I can get to a consideration of the original version of the resolution without having to open up a reconsideration of the very objectionable motion to amend by substitute?

[Dan Honemann]

57 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Honemann, I would like to toy with your response, if you have the patience to stay with me.  In the process, I will be revising the example in the book to illustrate an interesting consequence of your response in another parliamentary situation.  Please bear that in mind.  Because it bends my mind, I am going to avoid all the "X"s, "Y"s, and "Z"s.

Suppose I am a member who, in the first instance, am mildly agreeable to the resolution in its original version.  Further, suppose I am very strongly opposed to the motion to substitute.  Further, suppose I am mildly agreeable to the secondary amendment to strike out and insert words in the resolution, since it seems to be a "middle path" to avoid doing what the primary amendment to substitute proposes.

Now, suppose that the secondary amendment is adopted and the primary amendment to substitute is rejected.  Further, suppose that the resolution, as amended, is adopted.

Now, suppose that, after the adoption of the resolution, as amended, I have a reasonable basis for changing my mind about the advisability of doing what the amended resolution proposes.  I still strongly oppose what the motion to substitute proposed, but I would still be agreeable to do what the resolution in its original version proposed.

What you, Mr. Honemann, seem to me to be saying (and I don't want to put words in your mouth!) is that I must move to reconsider the resolution, as amended, and the detested motion to substitute in order to move reconsideration of the secondary amendment in hopes that the secondary amendment will be rejected upon reconsideration and the primary amendment to substitute will be rejected.

That strikes me as a risky course of action.  On the one hand, I want to get to a consideration of the resolution in its original form; on the other hand, I have to open up a Pandora's box and risk having the substitute adopted.  That puts me in a very difficult situation.  Is there no way I can get to a consideration of the original version of the resolution without having to open up a reconsideration of the very objectionable motion to amend by substitute?

Under the circumstances as you describe them, with the motion to substitute having been rejected, it will be in order to move reconsideration of both the vote which was finally taken on the resolution and the vote which was taken on Member X's motion to amend the resolution as originally moved, which was adopted. There is no need to move reconsideration of the vote which rejected the motion to substitute. 

Edited May 18, 2021 at 08:08 PM by Daniel H. Honemann
Added the last sentence

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, sir.  That relieves my mind. 😊

[Dan Honemann]

25 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Thank you, sir.  That relieves my mind. 😊

As you will note, I amended my response by adding the last sentence after this response was posted by Mr. Elsman, but I'm quite confident that he understood what I meant without my having made this addition.

[Rob Elsman]

In appreciation for the attention you paid to my question, I have decided to cancel my invoice. Please disregard it. 😆

[Guest Zev]

Since Mr. H tried to pass the invoice to me, I suppose I should also be grateful that this matter has been resolved in a friendly manner without further damage.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/18/2021 at 3:43 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Under the circumstances as you describe them, with the motion to substitute having been rejected, it will be in order to move reconsideration of both the vote which was finally taken on the resolution and the vote which was taken on Member X's motion to amend the resolution as originally moved, which was adopted. There is no need to move reconsideration of the vote which rejected the motion to substitute. 

Man, that footnote to 37:19 keeps getting longer and longer. 🙂

But I'm not sure I agree. In this scenario, the "risk" that Mr. Elsman wishes to avoid is that of accounting for the preferences of other factions within the assembly. There may be members who are adamantly opposed to the original form of the main motion but would be agreeable to either the amended form or the proposed substitute. If the question is reconsidered, they ought to have the opportunity, as well, of reconsidering the vote by which the substitute was rejected.

Although I suppose the next thing we'll learn is that this is not a problem, because a member can simply move to reconsider the vote on the motion to substitute, as if no secondary amendment had been previously adopted at the time of the original vote, immediately after the new vote is taken on the secondary amendment that was reconsidered as though it was adopted when no primary amendment was pending. 🙂

[Dan Honemann]

6 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Although I suppose the next thing we'll learn is that this is not a problem, because a member can simply move to reconsider the vote on the motion to substitute, as if no secondary amendment had been previously adopted at the time of the original vote, immediately after the new vote is taken on the secondary amendment that was reconsidered as though it was adopted when no primary amendment was pending.

Yes, I think that this is, indeed, correct.

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 rejected, and then the resolution, as amended by Member X's motion, is defeated. I've changed my mind and am now in favor of the resolution as originally moved and so I move to reconsider both the vote which was finally taken on the resolution and the vote which was taken on Member X's motion to amend the resolution as originally moved, which was adopted (I voted in favor of it). 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 resolution as originally moved. While this is pending, it will be in order for any member who voted against the motion to substitute to move to reconsider the vote on that motion.

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

I am learning an awful lot, here.  Thank you for hanging in there with me. 😬

[Shmuel Gerber]

11 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, I think that this is, indeed, correct.

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 rejected, and then the resolution, as amended by Member X's motion, is defeated. I've changed my mind and am now in favor of the resolution as originally moved and so I move to reconsider both the vote which was finally taken on the resolution and the vote which was taken on Member X's motion to amend the resolution as originally moved, which was adopted (I voted in favor of it). 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 resolution as originally moved. While this is pending, it will be in order for any member who voted against the motion to substitute to move to reconsider the vote on that motion.

This (i.e., in response to Mr. Elsman's question) is all very interesting, but I don't see how it comports with what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 37:30–31, read together with 12:11, 12:51, 12:70, and 37:19:

37:30    "… If it is desired to reconsider the vote on a subsidiary or incidental motion (an amendment, for example) after the main question to which it adhered has been finally disposed of … the vote on the main question … must also be reconsidered … In such a case, one motion to Reconsider should be made to cover both the vote on the subsidiary or incidental motion whose reconsideration is desired, and the vote on the main question … 
37:31    "The same principle applies to the reconsideration of a secondary amendment after the related primary amendment has been voted on. If such a reconsideration is desired while the main question is still pending, the primary amendment must also be reconsidered. If it is desired to reconsider the secondary amendment after the main question has been finally disposed of, the secondary amendment, the primary amendment, and the main question must all be reconsidered, and one motion to Reconsider should be made covering the votes of these three motions."

A motion to strike out and insert words in the original resolution, made when a motion to substitute is pending, is clearly a secondary amendment, not a primary amendment — despite the facts that it proposes a change in the paragraph to be struck out rather than in the paragraph to be inserted, and that the changes made by secondary amendment remain in the resolution if the substitute is voted down.

It seems to me that the proper course, when possible, is to just do things as the book says, i.e. to make a motion to Reconsider that will put things back the way they were immediately before the relevant vote was taken. Similarly, I would say that if the motion to substitute had been adopted, and a member wants to reconsider the vote (in 12:85–86) that added the words "within sixty days" to the substitute, it would be necessary to move a reconsideration of both the vote to adopt the substitute and the vote to add the words "within sixty days" (and also the vote on the main motion, if it is no longer pending). A member could not move to reconsider only the vote on adding the words "within sixty days" (and on the main motion) simply because those words now appear in the resolution as amended by the motion to substitute.

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

This (i.e., in response to Mr. Elsman's question) is all very interesting, but I don't see how it comports with what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 37:30–31, read together with 12:11, 12:51, 12:70, and 37:19:

37:30    "… If it is desired to reconsider the vote on a subsidiary or incidental motion (an amendment, for example) after the main question to which it adhered has been finally disposed of … the vote on the main question … must also be reconsidered … In such a case, one motion to Reconsider should be made to cover both the vote on the subsidiary or incidental motion whose reconsideration is desired, and the vote on the main question … 
37:31    "The same principle applies to the reconsideration of a secondary amendment after the related primary amendment has been voted on. If such a reconsideration is desired while the main question is still pending, the primary amendment must also be reconsidered. If it is desired to reconsider the secondary amendment after the main question has been finally disposed of, the secondary amendment, the primary amendment, and the main question must all be reconsidered, and one motion to Reconsider should be made covering the votes of these three motions."

A motion to strike out and insert words in the original resolution, made when a motion to substitute is pending, is clearly a secondary amendment, not a primary amendment — despite the facts that it proposes a change in the paragraph to be struck out rather than in the paragraph to be inserted, and that the changes made by secondary amendment remain in the resolution if the substitute is voted down.

It seems to me that the proper course, when possible, is to just do things as the book says, i.e. to make a motion to Reconsider that will put things back the way they were immediately before the relevant vote was taken. Similarly, I would say that if the motion to substitute had been adopted, and a member wants to reconsider the vote (in 12:85–86) that added the words "within sixty days" to the substitute, it would be necessary to move a reconsideration of both the vote to adopt the substitute and the vote to add the words "within sixty days" (and also the vote on the main motion, if it is no longer pending). A member could not move to reconsider only the vote on adding the words "within sixty days" (and on the main motion) simply because those words now appear in the resolution as amended by the motion to substitute.

As you have rightly noted, there are two very different kinds of secondary amendments. The first is a proposal to amend a primary amendment. The second is a proposal to amend the main motion made when a motion to amend it (a primary amendment) is pending. The first kind, whether adopted or rejected, will make no change whatsoever in the main motion. It will only make a change in the primary amendment (and in the manner in which it may subsequently be amended). The second kind, whether adopted or rejected, will make no change whatsoever in the primary amendment. It will only make a change in the main motion (and in the manner in which it may subsequently be amended).

The question that comes to my mind is the question as to whether or not the rules set forth in 37:30-31 should be considered as being fully applicable to situations involving the adoption or rejection of secondary amendments of the second type described above. As of now, I suppose you are right, and so they must be observed, but it won't make Mr. Elsman happy. My response relieved his mind.  🙂

 

[Rob Elsman]

You are right, Mr. Honemann--I am not very happy.  Maybe the authors of the next edition will take a look at this.

[RSW]

And if three opinionated parliamentarians at the meeting were differing about the proper way to get the original motion back on the table, but the rest of the assembly were (a) in agreement that the original motion needed to be reconsidered, and (b) tapping their feet and fidgeting uncomfortably, somebody could just propose a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the reconsideration of the original (unamended) motion?

Edited May 25, 2021 at 02:39 PM by RSW

[Dan Honemann]

50 minutes ago, RSW said:

And if three opinionated parliamentarians at the meeting were differing about the proper way to get the original motion back on the table, but the rest of the assembly were (a) in agreement that the original motion needed to be reconsidered, and (b) tapping their feet and fidgeting uncomfortably, somebody could just propose a motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the reconsideration of the original (unamended) motion?

Noting that rules can be suspended adds nothing at all to a discussion of what constitutes proper application of the rules.