reconsider an amendment

[Zippo]

Suppose the main motion is:

Move to donate $100 to Charity A.

During debate an amendment motion is made:

Move to strike ‘Charity A’ and insert ‘Charity B’.

Consider two situations:
1. amendment passes
2. amendment fails

During the main motion discussion, after the amendment passes or fails, another amendment motion is made that says:

Move to strike ‘Charity A’ and insert ‘Charity C’.
or
Move to strike ‘Charity B’ and insert ‘Charity C’.
depending on whether the first amendment passed or failed.

Is this motion is out of order because it raises a question already decided? see 12:13  “….so long as they do not again raise questions already decided during the same session.”

Does a motion to reconsider the original amendment need to be made in order to ‘try out Charity C’ or can the original amendment be changed to a fill-in the blank?  

[Bruce Lages]

The controlling paragraphs here are 12:63 and 12:64:  "The inserted matter cannot be struck out, and the matter that has been struck out cannot be inserted again except...through changes in the wording or the place in a way that presents a new question...". So, if the original amendment to strike out 'Charity A' and insert 'Charity B' is adopted, does striking out 'Charity B' and inserting 'Charity C' present a new question? It seems to me that it does, since 'Charity C' was not considered previously (stay tuned, however, for possible other opinions). If it does present a new question, then the subsequent amendment to strike out 'Charity B' and insert 'Charity C' is in order.

Also, if the initial amendment is defeated, it is in order to move to strike out 'Charity A' and insert 'Charity C' since this would also present a new question (12:64).

Perhaps a better solution would be to either create a blank so that various charities could be suggested to fill the blank, or to move to insert a different charity as a secondary amendment to the primary amendment, so that in either case, the choice of charity would be decided before voting to make the donation.

[Tim Wynn]

5 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

If it does present a new question, then the subsequent amendment to strike out 'Charity B' and insert 'Charity C' is in order.

And it seems to me that this is the exact type of permissible amendment that is described in 12:28(4).

[Atul Kapur]

8 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

So, if the original amendment to strike out 'Charity A' and insert 'Charity B' is adopted, does striking out 'Charity B' and inserting 'Charity C' present a new question? It seems to me that it does, since 'Charity C' was not considered previously (stay tuned, however, for possible other opinions). If it does present a new question, then the subsequent amendment to strike out 'Charity B' and insert 'Charity C' is in order.

 

2 hours ago, Tim Wynn said:

And it seems to me that this is the exact type of permissible amendment that is described in 12:28(4).

I have considered 12:28(4) to require that at least one adjacent word be included in the strike-out. The motion here is simply to strike out exactly those words that were inserted ("Charity B").

More generally, I appear to be in the minority, but I would consider the question to be "Which charity should we donate to?" Under that interpretation, I believe that I would require a motion to reconsider the initial motion to strike out and insert, then accept a secondary amendment to strike out B and insert C (or to create a blank). That would be how I would apply 12:25.

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Tim Wynn said:

And it seems to me that this is the exact type of permissible amendment that is described in 12:28(4).

Not at all. When the book says that it is OK to "strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question," it is referring (obviously, IMO) to striking out a portion of the paragraph that includes words other than the ones inserted.

Perhaps the rule was stated more clearly in this aspect in ROR (pp. 137-38): "After words have been inserted or added, they cannot be changed or struck out except by a motion to strike out the paragraph, or such a portion of it as shall make the question an entirely different one from that of inserting the particular words; or by combining such a motion to strike out the paragraph or a portion of it with the motion to insert other words." 

[Shmuel Gerber]

2 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

it is referring (obviously, IMO) to striking out a portion of the paragraph that includes words other than the ones inserted.

Although I suppose it is possible to find cases where adding or inserting unrelated words will necessitate some change involving an inserted word (e.g. to the grammatical form or to the order in which the words appear) without affecting other words in the paragraph.

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

More generally, I appear to be in the minority, but I would consider the question to be "Which charity should we donate to?"

Generally, that is the question. But the permissible amendments will depend on the specifics.

If a motion to strike out A and insert B is rejected, the assembly has not necessarily decided that A shall remain in the motion, but only that it shall not be replaced by B.

But if a motion to strike out A and insert B is adopted, the assembly has decided that B shall remain in the motion in place of A. Striking out B and inserting C would then conflict with this decision to insert B. If the assembly prefers C > B > A, it needs to make sure not to insert B, either by rejecting the amendment to strike out A and insert B, or by adopting a secondary amendment to strike out B and insert C while the primary amendment is pending.

By the way, this all assumes that there is some reason that the question of donating $100 to Charity B or Charity C is somehow germane to the question of donating $100 to Charity A.

[Dan Honemann]

15 hours ago, Zippo said:

Does a motion to reconsider the original amendment need to be made in order to ‘try out Charity C’ or can the original amendment be changed to a fill-in the blank?  

While the main motion to donate $100 to Charity A is immediately pending, or while the subsidiary motion to amend the main motion by striking "Charity A" and inserting "Charity B" is immediately pending, a motion can be made to create a blank by striking out "Charity A", but no motion to create a blank can be made after a motion to amend has been voted on (RONR, 12th ed., 12:95(b)). 

[Tim Wynn]

13 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Not at all. When the book says that it is OK to "strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question," it is referring (obviously, IMO) to striking out a portion of the paragraph that includes words other than the ones inserted.

 

You mean as it says in 12:28(2)?

"To strike out a portion of the paragraph, including all or a part of the words inserted and enough other words to make a different question from the one decided by the insertion." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(2)

The omission of this from 12:28(4) would make this reference less than obvious.

"To strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(4)

It appears that the "other" that is necessary in (4) is to "insert other words." 

If the first seventeen words in 12:28(2) mean the same thing as the identical first seventeen words in 12:28(4), why is it necessary to have the language "and enough other words to make a different question" in the former but not the latter? Is this language redundant in 12:28(2) and implied in 12:28(4)? In fact, this language appearing in 12:28(2) is the only thing that makes me believe that an amendment described in 12:28(4) does not require the striking of "enough other words to make a different question."  

 

[Dan Honemann]

Mr. Lages had it right when he referred to 12:63 and 12:64 as containing the answers to the questions asked by Zippo.

So, if the original amendment to strike out "Charity A'' and insert ''Charity B'' is adopted, it will certainly not be in order to then move to strike '‘Charity B’' and insert '‘Charity C’".

 

[Shmuel Gerber]

18 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said:

You mean as it says in 12:28(2)?

"To strike out a portion of the paragraph, including all or a part of the words inserted and enough other words to make a different question from the one decided by the insertion." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(2)

The omission of this from 12:28(4) would make this reference less than obvious.

"To strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(4)

It appears that the "other" that is necessary in (4) is to "insert other words." 

If the first seventeen words in 12:28(2) mean the same thing as the identical first seventeen words in 12:28(4), why is it necessary to have the language "and enough other words to make a different question" in the former but not the latter? Is this language redundant in 12:28(2) and implied in 12:28(4)? In fact, this language appearing in 12:28(2) is the only thing that makes me believe that an amendment described in 12:28(4) does not require the striking of "enough other words to make a different question."  

 

In the case of striking out words already inserted (without inserting any new words), the only way to possibly present a different question is to strike out enough other words as to make a different question.

In the case of striking out words already inserted and inserting others at the same time, the rule is still that the inserted words "cannot be changed or struck out during the same session, except through a reconsideration of the vote, or through an amendment presenting a new question in the form of a motion: … To strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question." Cleary the "new question" can't simply be whether it would have been better to insert words other than the ones that were inserted! But the newness of the question may arise from striking out enough other words, or the addition of enough other words, or some combination of the two.

Here is an example of where a new question is presented even though the words being struck out are the same as ones that were inserted:

1. The main motion includes a provision that "the choices will be: chocolate, vanilla, pistachio."

2. An amendment is adopted "to add 'and strawberry'".

3a. It would be out of order to then move "to strike out 'and strawberry' and insert 'and butter pecan'". 

3b. However, it would be OK to move "to strike out 'and strawberry' and insert ', strawberry and butter pecan'".

[Tim Wynn]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

In the case of striking out words already inserted (without inserting any new words), the only way to possibly present a different question is to strike out enough other words as to make a different question.

In the case of striking out words already inserted and inserting others at the same time, the rule is still that the inserted words "cannot be changed or struck out during the same session, except through a reconsideration of the vote, or through an amendment presenting a new question in the form of a motion: … To strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question." Cleary the "new question" can't simply be whether it would have been better to insert words other than the ones that were inserted! But the newness of the question may arise from striking out enough other words, or the addition of enough other words, or some combination of the two.

Here is an example of where a new question is presented even though the words being struck out are the same as ones that were inserted:

1. The main motion includes a provision that "the choices will be: chocolate, vanilla, pistachio."

2. An amendment is adopted "to add 'and strawberry'".

3a. It would be out of order to then move "to strike out 'and strawberry' and insert 'and butter pecan'". 

3b. However, it would be OK to move "to strike out 'and strawberry' and insert ', strawberry and butter pecan'".

Shmuel,

 

Thank you, sir. I believe that clears it up, if my understanding is correct: the crux of the matter is whether this represents a new question, not whether other words were struck out, since in your example you concur that in some cases a motion to strike out and insert is in order even if it is striking out only words that were inserted.  

 

For the past ten years or so, up until yesterday, I was under the complete conviction that inserted words could not be struck out through a motion to strike out and insert, unless they were joined with other words being struck out. However, I'm now of the understanding that this is not the case, so long as a motion to strike out only inserted words and insert other words succeeds in creating a new question. 

 

This explains why 12:28(2) and 12:28(4) contain slightly but precisely different wording.

 

It just doesn't explain this . . .

😁

15 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

When the book says that it is OK to "strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question," it is referring (obviously, IMO) to striking out a portion of the paragraph that includes words other than the ones inserted.

 

[Atul Kapur]

Tim, I am glad that you are clearer; but your last comments have me a bit confused.

27 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said:

For the past ten years or so, up until yesterday, I was under the complete conviction that inserted words could not be struck out through a motion to strike out and insert, unless they were joined with other words being struck out.

But I do not see how that conviction matches with your earlier support for the primary amendment to strike out "Charity B" and insert "Charity C."

[Tim Wynn]

2 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

But I do not see how that conviction matches with your earlier support for the primary amendment to strike out "Charity B" and insert "Charity C."

 

33 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said:

For the past ten years or so, up until yesterday, I was under the complete conviction that . . .

Reading Bruce's post on this question rattled my conviction. Always beware a man on a boat. 😉

[Atul Kapur]

6 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said:

 

Reading Bruce's post on this question rattled my conviction. Always beware a man on a boat. 😉

I hear that they can be even more conviction-rattling if they are fishing off the boat. 

[Tim Wynn]

6 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I hear that they can be even more conviction-rattling if they are fishing off the boat. 

Clever! 😉

(I trust and respect Bruce's instinct, though)

I actually wrote a long response declaring how it would not be in order to strike the inserted language, but when I saw Bruce going the other way, I began to over (actually under) analyze.  

Edited June 16, 2021 at 10:01 PM by Tim Wynn