Amending an Existing Rule by Substitution

[Weldon Merritt]

In the discussion of the subsidiary motion to Amen Amend, when the primary amendment is to amend by substitution,  RONR says that both the original language and the proposed substitute are open the secondary amendment.  I don't see a similar statement regarding they incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. (Maybe it's there and I just missed it.) Would I be correct in assuming that a similar rue applies when the ASPA proposes to substitute a new provision an existing one?  Except in that case, the original and the proposed substitute would both be open to perfection by both primary and secondary amendment, since ASPA is a main motion.

Assuming my understating is correct, and assuming that while ASPA is pending, someone moves to amend the corresponding portion of the original document, and that amendment is adopted.  Then ultimately the motion to substitute is lost. What is the status of the adopted amendment to the original. I assume it is in full force and effect without further action by the assembly, but I want ti see if there is a flaw in my thinning

 

Edited March 31, 2023 at 01:05 AM by Weldon Merritt
Corrected a typo.

[J. J.]

I think you might have an issue with scope of notice. 

I would add that, except the scope of notice issue, ASPA is fully amendable. 

Edited March 30, 2023 at 10:46 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:00 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

In the discussion of the subsidiary motion to Amen, when the primary amendment is to amend by substitution,  RONR says that both the original language and the proposed substitute are open the secondary amendment.  I don't see a similar statement regarding they incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. (Maybe it's there and I just missed it.) Would I be correct in assuming that a similar rue applies when the ASPA proposes to substitute a new provision an existing one?  Except in that case, the original and the proposed substitute would both be open to perfection by both primary and secondary amendment, since ASPA is a main motion.

Assuming my understating is correct, and assuming that while ASPA is pending, someone moves to amend the corresponding portion of the original document, and that amendment is adopted.  Then ultimately the motion to substitute is lost. What is the status of the adopted amendment to the original. I assume it is in full force and effect without further action by the assembly, but I want ti see if there is a flaw in my thinning

 

I'm afraid that none of this is correct.

When a motion is made to amend something previously adopted, by substitution or otherwise, the "thing" proposed to be amended is not pending.  As a consequence, when a motion is made to amend something previously adopted by substituting something for it, only the proposed substitute is open to amendment.  (cf. 57:5) 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/30/2023 at 4:00 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

In the discussion of the subsidiary motion to Amen....

That might be covered in ROR §74, Rights of Ecclesiastical Tribunals.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 3/30/2023 at 5:15 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When a motion is made to amend something previously adopted, by substitution or otherwise, the "thing" proposed to be amended is not pending.  As a consequence, when a motion is made to amend something previously adopted by substituting something for it, only the proposed substitute is open to amendment.  (cf. 57:5) 

Yes, 57:5 makes it perfectly clear that when a bylaws revisio9n is penning, the original bylaws are not op0en to amendment.  But it is not as clear whether the same is true of ae substitute that is not a revision, as discussed in the footnote to that provision. Or to ASPA when applied to any other exiting rule. Is there anything that I have missed that explicitly says that?

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/30/2023 at 9:14 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes, 57:5 makes it perfectly clear that when a bylaws revisio9n is penning, the original bylaws are not op0en to amendment.  But it is not as clear whether the same is true of ae substitute that is not a revision, as discussed in the footnote to that provision. Or to ASPA when applied to any other exiting rule. Is there anything that I have missed that explicitly says that?

What 57:5 explicitly says is that "The revision can be perfected by first-degree and second-degree amendments, but as in the case of any other bylaw amendment, the old document is not pending; and therefore, while the revision can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form."

What is being emphasized in 57:5 is that the only difference between a revision offered by a committee authorized to do so and any other proposed bylaw  amendment is that motions to amend the former are not limited to the extent of change for which notice was given.

A motion to amend the bylaws is a particular case of the incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted  (57:1), and it should be rather obvious that when such a motion is moved and stated by the chair, it is the only motion pending before the assembly. The motion or motions which at some time or times in the past resulted in the creation of the "thing" to be  amended are very obviously not then pending, and, as a consequence, are not then subject to subsidiary motions to amend them.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:56 AM, Dan Honemann said:

What 57:5 explicitly says is that "The revision can be perfected by first-degree and second-degree amendments, but as in the case of any other bylaw amendment, the old document is not pending; and therefore, while the revision can be rejected altogether, leaving the old bylaws intact, the old document cannot be altered with a view to retaining it in a changed form."

Obviously I overlooked the emphasized language. Thanks for the clarification. Seems clear enough now.