Series of Amendments

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I regularly read the section on amendments because although most people think they know the rules, they are complex and every time I read it, I learn or re-learn something new or have a new question.  Here is my new question:

 

Looking at RONR 12:14 talking a noncomforming series of amendments offered in one motion.  It says that a separate vote can be demanded on one or more of them.  Are they debated and amended separately?  That whole section is confusing to me.

[Rob Elsman]

There is a referral to §51:45-48, which will answer your question, I think.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/9/2023 at 9:08 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Looking at RONR 12:14 talking a noncomforming series of amendments offered in one motion.  It says that a separate vote can be demanded on one or more of them.  Are they debated and amended separately?  That whole section is confusing to me.

Yes, after first taking up the ones that are being voted on in gross.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

I am sorry if I am being dumb, so is this basically just division?

[Rob Elsman]

No, I do not view this as a division of the question.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/9/2023 at 10:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

so is this basically just division?

 

On 1/9/2023 at 4:19 PM, Rob Elsman said:

No, I do not view this as a division of the question.

Agreeing with Mr. Elsman, I do not view it as a division of the question, either, but I do see how it seems similar.... and maybe it is similar in a sense.  It might also help to look at a consent agenda as an example (or analogy):  Assume you have a consent agenda with a dozen unrelated items on it. All items on the consent agenda are approved in one vote. However, any one member may insist that one or more of the consent agenda items be removed from the consent agenda and taken up separately and individually in the appropriate place in the order of business.  The items remaining on the consent agenda are voted on with one vote.  I view that as being similar as a motion to take up a series of nonconforming amendments with one vote.  In that sense, I suppose you might also say it has similarities to one member being able to require a division of the question when the motion or resolution deals with different subjects in one motion or resolution.  Such a motion (question) must be divided upon the demand of a single member.  See, for example, 27:10

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:19 PM, Rob Elsman said:

No, I do not view this as a division of the question.

 

On 1/9/2023 at 5:46 PM, Richard Brown said:

I view that as being similar as a motion to take up a series of nonconforming amendments with one vote.  In that sense, I suppose you might also say it has similarities to one member being able to require a division of the question when the motion or resolution deals with different subjects in one motion or resolution.  Such a motion (question) must be divided upon the demand of a single member.  See, for example, 27:10

And how about 27:11?

[Richard Brown]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:24 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

And how about 27:11?

Well, I did say it is similar, and 27:11, being the section after the one I referenced, goes on to say “similarly, a series of amendments to a pending main motion (or to a lengthy primary amendment, such as a substitute) may be offered in one motion. Unless these amendments meet the standard for conforming amendments given in 12:15, any member may demand a separate vote on one or more of them. After the others have been voted on together, the amendments on which separate votes were requested or disposed of“.

That section does seem to say that it is at least similar to and treated the same as a division of the question. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

It seems to be it IS division as that is in the section on division.  I don't think the "similarly" is referring to division writ large, but just talking about a similarity between different circumstances of division.

[Rob Elsman]

The demand by a single member for a separate vote on one of a series of amendments offered under one motion is not the incidental motion, Division of a Question, which requires a majority vote for adoption. See RONR (12th Ed.) 27:3, item 7.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:40 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The demand by a single member for a separate vote on one of a series of amendments offered under one motion is not the incidental motion, Division of a Question, which requires a majority vote for adoption. See RONR (12th Ed.) 27:3, item 7.

That doesn't change the fact that the member is demanding that the question be divided. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:40 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The demand by a single member for a separate vote on one of a series of amendments offered under one motion is not the incidental motion, Division of a Question, which requires a majority vote for adoption. See RONR (12th Ed.) 27:3, item 7.

The fact that it is not the motion for division, but an automatic division on the demand of one member, does not make it not division.  27:11 appears under the subtitle "Motions that Must be Divided on Demand" - if you want to argue that something that appears under a title that is about dividing questions, in a section called "division of a question" is not division.... okay.  No one said it required the incidental motion for division.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/9/2023 at 4:44 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

That doesn't change the fact that the member is demanding that the question be divided. 

Bingo.

[Rob Elsman]

No, the demand by one member is for a separate vote on one amendment of a series offered under one motion.

The motion to divide a question requires a majority vote for adoption.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:54 PM, Rob Elsman said:

No, the demand by one member is for a separate vote on one amendment of a series offered under one motion.

The motion to divide a question requires a majority vote for adoption.

If you are making a (relevant) point, I am hard-pressed to figure out what it is. How do you explain this paragraph: "27:2      There are also certain motions which must be divided on the demand of a single member, in which case a formal motion to divide is not used (see 27:10–11). The eight characteristics below apply only to the incidental motion for Division of a Question."

[Rob Elsman]

That's exactly the point I am making.

When a member makes a demand for a separate vote on one of a series of amendments offered under one motion, the word "series" indicates that the amendments are already divided from one another. That's precisely why the motion, Division of a Question, is not used. The demand is merely that the whole series not be voted on in gross.

[Richard Brown]

I agree that since RONR puts it in the section on division of the question, it is treated as a division of the question.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:06 PM, Rob Elsman said:

That's exactly the point I am making.

When a member makes a demand for a separate vote on one of a series of amendments offered under one motion, the word "series" indicates that the amendments are already divided from one another. That's precisely why the motion, Division of a Question, is not used. The demand is merely that the whole series not be voted on in gross.

So you are claiming that term "division" means separated from each other by blank space on a paper?

[Richard Brown]

On 1/9/2023 at 6:06 PM, Rob Elsman said:

When a member makes a demand for a separate vote on one of a series of amendments offered under one motion, the word "series" indicates that the amendments are already divided from one another.

But they are all still being offered as one motion, one question. The intent is to divide that one motion/question into its various parts.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, as a practical matter, I do think sentences should be separated by a blank space. Having said that, what I said above really has nothing to do with blank spaces or a paper.

[Rob Elsman]

They are a series of amendments offered under one motion.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:06 PM, Rob Elsman said:

.....the word "series" indicates that the amendments are already divided from one another. .

 

On 1/9/2023 at 5:12 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Well, as a practical matter, I do think sentences should be separated by a blank space. Having said that, what I said above really has nothing to do with blank spaces or a paper.

Apparently it does.

[Rob Elsman]

Nooneactuallythinksaseriesofamendmentswillnotbeseparatedbyablankspace.

Edited January 10, 2023 at 12:22 AM by Rob Elsman

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/9/2023 at 7:18 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Nooneactuallythinksaseriesofamendmentswillnitbeseparatedbyablankspace.

I was wondering how long until somebody filled the blanks. 😀

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/9/2023 at 5:21 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I was wondering how long until somebody filled the blanks. 😀

Only if there is not a unexhausted order on all previous questions.

Edited January 10, 2023 at 12:23 AM by Caryn Ann Harlos