Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Is This A New Question?


Tim Wynn
 Share

Recommended Posts

The main motion is "That the Southern Historical Society commends the following Florida-native staff members for their hard work on this year's annual Florida Day parade: . . . [names of hard working staff members]"
 
A motion to amend by striking out "Florida-native" and inserting "Floridian" is adopted. 
 
Does a motion to strike out "Floridian" present a new question (in relation to the one decided by the adoption of the amendment) since
 
a) those who oppose any Florida reference altogether might have only preferred "Floridian" to "Florida-native" as opposed to actually wanting it in the motion, and
 
b) the motion to strike out and insert did not present the question of removing it altogether?
 
My question is not whether the motion is in order, but whether it would present a new question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said:
The main motion is "That the Southern Historical Society commends the following Florida-native staff members for their hard work on this year's annual Florida Day parade: . . . [names of hard working staff members]"
 
A motion to amend by striking out "Florida-native" and inserting "Floridian" is adopted. 
 
Does a motion to strike out "Floridian" present a new question (in relation to the one decided by the adoption of the amendment) since
 
a) those who oppose any Florida reference altogether might have only preferred "Floridian" to "Florida-native" as opposed to actually wanting it in the motion, and
 
b) the motion to strike out and insert did not present the question of removing it altogether?
 
My question is not whether the motion is in order, but whether it would present a new question.

It does not present a new question in the form of any of the motions described in RONR, 12th ed., 12:28, so why do you ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It does not present a new question in the form of any of the motions described in RONR, 12th ed., 12:28, so why do you ask?

I'm trying to understand whether any of its being out of order is based on a perception that it does not present a new question. I'm trying to fully understand the underlying principle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

It does not present a new question in the form of any of the motions described in RONR, 12th ed., 12:28, so why do you ask?

If a motion to strike out inserted words can present a new question (even though it is not a question that is in order), then the reason for its being out of order must be based in some principle other than the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tim Wynn said:

I'm trying to understand whether any of its being out of order is based on a perception that it does not present a new question. I'm trying to fully understand the underlying principle. 

I think you've raised a very interesting question that points to a practical anomaly in the making of amendments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The underlying principle is set forth in 12:25.

The assembly has decided that the word "Floridian" shall form a part of the pending motion. It seems to me that a motion to strike it out raises the same question that the assembly has just decided.

 
Thank you, sir. What is said in 12:25 does give me comfort. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...