Division of the question

[Tomm]

Our organization has one of those bylaws that, at meetings of the Board, a motion is required to be voted on and passed at 3 consecutive meetings.

It has been noted thru this forum in the past that just because the motion was amended, the now amended motion doesn't need to be voted on and passed 3 additional times because it wasn't really a new motion, but simply an amended main motion.

If the motion was amended to divide the question into 2 separate motions would that, in your opinion, require that each of the new motions be voted on and passed 3 additional times?  

[Joshua Katz]

Note that a division into two separate motions is not an amendment, but covered by its own motion. 

In my opinion (which is worth the paper it is not printed on) such a change would not require restarting the count, so to speak.

[Tomm]

What if the motion was made to divide at the second or third reading? 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:15 PM, Tomm said:

What if the motion was made to divide at the second or third reading? 

IMO (worth as much as Mr. Katz's), that would not change the answer.

[Tomm]

I guess my confusion comes from the question of why wouldn't you restart the vote on each new motion since each motion is now, kind of, a new stand alone issue?

I believe you can't divide the question unless each one can stand alone on its own merits so what would justify a continuation of a vote to proceed without a restart? 

A motion such as, approve the general managers budget, but was then amended to add an increase in an annual fee.

The question should/could be divided into 2 separate motions:

1. Approve the general managers budget. (the original main motion)

2. Increase the annual fee.

What would justify not restarting the vote?

 

 

[Rob Elsman]

Tomm, with all due respect, it's your rule; you tell us.  But, my invoice of the exorbitant charges for this solid advice will be sent to Mr. Honemann.  😊

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/29/2021 at 8:18 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Tomm, with all due respect, it's your rule; you tell us. 

He did.

On 11/29/2021 at 7:54 PM, Tomm said:

The question should/could be divided into 2 separate motions:

 

Did you have a question, or an answer?

On 11/29/2021 at 7:54 PM, Tomm said:

What would justify not restarting the vote?

 

Let's start here: what do you think this rule achieves? If it's just a pointless formality, then there's probably a good case for having to "start over." But if it's serving some sort of notice requirement, then that purpose has been fulfilled. If the motion is to do A and B, and you divide it up, did everyone have the required notice as to A? Yes. As to B? Also yes.

On 11/29/2021 at 6:44 PM, Tomm said:

It has been noted thru this forum in the past that just because the motion was amended, the now amended motion doesn't need to be voted on and passed 3 additional times because it wasn't really a new motion, but simply an amended main motion.

 

It seems to me that if you want to question something, the weaker case is on amendment and the stronger case is on division. 

[Tomm]

You guys know best and I appreciate your response but it appears to me (and that's just me) that the 2 stand alone motions should be restarted because you can now vote to approve the GM's budget without increasing the annual fee and you can vote to increase the annual fee regardless of whether or not the budget is approved?

Thanks!

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/29/2021 at 7:15 PM, Tomm said:

What if the motion was made to divide at the second or third reading? 

I don't think it would or should matter.

But obviously there's no support for that view in RONR because RONR has no similar three-reading rule.

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/29/2021 at 7:54 PM, Tomm said:

A motion such as, approve the general managers budget, but was then amended to add an increase in an annual fee.

The question should/could be divided into 2 separate motions:

1. Approve the general managers budget. (the original main motion)

2. Increase the annual fee.

If it is proposed as an amendment, then I question whether it is divisible from the main motion that it is amending. If it is separate enough that it could be divided, then I would question whether it, as an amendment, was germane to the main motion.

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/30/2021 at 2:07 AM, Atul Kapur said:

If it is proposed as an amendment, then I question whether it is divisible from the main motion that it is amending. If it is separate enough that it could be divided, then I would question whether it, as an amendment, was germane to the main motion.

This raises some fascinating questions, worthy of discussion in a separate thread. 

[Josh Martin]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:44 PM, Tomm said:

Our organization has one of those bylaws that, at meetings of the Board, a motion is required to be voted on and passed at 3 consecutive meetings.

It has been noted thru this forum in the past that just because the motion was amended, the now amended motion doesn't need to be voted on and passed 3 additional times because it wasn't really a new motion, but simply an amended main motion.

It first must be noted that it is ultimately up to the organization to interpret its own rules.

To the extent that we view this rule as roughly equivalent to a previous notice requirement, I concur with Mr. Katz. A division of a motion simply separates the motion into two separate motions and adds nothing new. As a result, it cannot possibly exceed the scope of notice.

I am also not entirely certain that the advice we apparently gave regarding amendments is necessarily correct for all amendments.

On 11/29/2021 at 8:15 PM, Tomm said:

You guys know best and I appreciate your response but it appears to me (and that's just me) that the 2 stand alone motions should be restarted because you can now vote to approve the GM's budget without increasing the annual fee and you can vote to increase the annual fee regardless of whether or not the budget is approved?

But the board could do that whether or not the motion had been divided, by means of amending the motion.

In any event, the ultimate solution seems to still be that the society should just get rid of this rule, since it appears that it is always causing problems and no one ever knows what it means.

Edited November 30, 2021 at 12:15 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Zev]

On 11/29/2021 at 6:15 PM, Tomm said:

You guys know best and I appreciate your response but it appears to me (and that's just me) that the 2 stand alone motions should be restarted ...

The problem I have is that if the motion contained say ten parts and each one was divided after two readings it appears that some twenty meetings would be necessary to consider all the separate items. As Mr. Martin has indicated, a solution which I like, is to get rid of this rule. An alternative, however, is to adopt a special rule of order indicating that no motion can be divided until after the third reading. In this fashion no "restarts" take place that interfere and create confusion over the meaning of the reading rule. Just trying to be helpful, guys.

[Josh Martin]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:41 PM, Guest Zev said:

An alternative, however, is to adopt a special rule of order indicating that no motion can be divided until after the third reading. In this fashion no "restarts" take place that interfere and create confusion over the meaning of the reading rule. Just trying to be helpful, guys.

I agree, and I would go further. If the society is to keep this rule, it may well be prudent to amend it so that it prevents the adoption of any motions pertaining to the main motion whatsoever until after the third reading, and eliminates the requirement to vote on the motion three times and instead simply require that it be read three times. In this manner, the motion would only be before the assembly for consideration at its third reading. There would therefore be no opportunity to amend, divide, or otherwise modify the motion prior to the third reading, which would eliminate many of the problems the society has been having. This would make the rule much more similar to an ordinary requirement for previous notice, with the only remaining difference being that it requires that such notice be given at two consecutive meetings.

Edited December 1, 2021 at 02:56 PM by Josh Martin

[George Mervosh]

On 11/30/2021 at 6:38 AM, Dan Honemann said:

This raises some fascinating questions, worthy of discussion in a separate thread. 

Would you mind starting one?  I'm certainly interested in learning more about this.

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/29/2021 at 7:54 PM, Tomm said:

A motion such as, approve the general managers budget, but was then amended to add an increase in an annual fee.

The question should/could be divided into 2 separate motions:

1. Approve the general managers budget. (the original main motion)

2. Increase the annual fee.

Putting aside any questions relating to a three reading rule, I am of the opinion that this assertion is incorrect. The question cannot be divided after the adoption of the motion to amend because the assembly has decided, by its adoption of the motion to amend, that the part it added relating to an increase in an annual fee shall comprise a part of the motion to approve the general managers budget. 

RONR (12th ed.) 6:25 tells us that, during any session in which an assembly has decided a question, the same or substantially the same question cannot be brought up again except through special procedures, and that paragraph makes it clear (as does 8:15) that the "special procedures" referred to are the parliamentary motions that bring a question again before the assembly. 

 

[Tomm]

On 12/5/2021 at 7:39 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Putting aside any questions relating to a three reading rule, I am of the opinion that this assertion is incorrect. The question cannot be divided after the adoption of the motion to amend because the assembly has decided, by its adoption of the motion to amend, that the part it added relating to an increase in an annual fee shall comprise a part of the motion to approve the general managers budget. 

I guess what initiated my original question was the fact that a motion to increase an annual fee was in fact raised at the preceding meeting and never received a second and therefore died. At the next meeting when the GM presented his report on the upcoming budget and was simply looking for an approval, the increase in the annual fee was added.

That's why I'm questioning whether or not the question can be divided!  

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/5/2021 at 12:42 PM, Tomm said:

I guess what initiated my original question was the fact that a motion to increase an annual fee was in fact raised at the preceding meeting and never received a second and therefore died. At the next meeting when the GM presented his report on the upcoming budget and was simply looking for an approval, the increase in the annual fee was added.

That's why I'm questioning whether or not the question can be divided!  

These additional facts are of no consequence.

[Atul Kapur]

My earlier post assumed that the amendment (to increase the annual fee) had been made and was immediately pending, not that it had been adopted. 

In that situation, I questioned whether a division was in order. If, in fact, that annual fee increase is germane to the budget, then the question would be decided by vote on the amendment.

If the amendment has been adopted, then I agree with Mr. Honemann.

[Dan Honemann]

On 12/5/2021 at 3:07 PM, Atul Kapur said:

My earlier post assumed that the amendment (to increase the annual fee) had been made and was immediately pending, not that it had been adopted. 

In that situation, I questioned whether a division was in order. If, in fact, that annual fee increase is germane to the budget, then the question would be decided by vote on the amendment.

If the motion to amend by adding the part relating to an increase in an annual fee has been made and is immediately pending, I certainly agree that no motion to divide will be in order since there is no motion pending which is capable of division. Even if we assume a case in which the main motion to approve the general managers budget is, in fact, somehow divisible, a motion to divide it will still be out of order because it will not take precedence over the pending motion to amend. 

But I gather that what you were getting at had something to do with the question as to the germaneness of the motion to amend, and I am curious as to what that might be. I thought that you may have been positing the idea that the germaneness of an adopted motion to amend may have some bearing on the subsequent divisibility of the main motion as thus amended, but maybe not.

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/6/2021 at 7:59 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I thought that you may have been positing the idea that the germaneness of an adopted motion to amend may have some bearing on the subsequent divisibility of the main motion as thus amended, but maybe not.

That is exactly the question that I was getting at in my first post: the relationship between germaneness and divisibility.