Friendly Amendment

[Tomm]

Can the maker of a motion to amend the bylaws make a friendly amendment to that amendment or is he/she required to make it a primary amendment?

Can the maker/mover modify it per 33:12 (before a motion has been stated by the chair) and does that modification have to be voted on?

Would it be correct to believe that only other members (of the board) can make a "friendly amendment"?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/25/2023 at 5:33 PM, Tomm said:

Can the maker of a motion to amend the bylaws make a friendly amendment to that amendment or is he/she required to make it a primary amendment?

Can the maker/mover modify it per 33:12 (before a motion has been stated by the chair) and does that modification have to be voted on?

Would it be correct to believe that only other members (of the board) can make a "friendly amendment"?

So-called "friendly" amendments are not a thing. Amendments are amendments are amendments.

Yes, a maker of any motion may modify it before it has been placed before the assembly, and a vote on it would not be possible until it is.

But if, as is true in many organizations, the exact text of a proposed bylaw amendment must be made known before the meeting at which it is to be moved, then the motion would have to be moved in that exact form, or it would have to wait until a future meeting.  But once it is being considered, it can be amended by normal means, as long as it stays within the scope of the previous notice, which is a topic that could take up a whole morning. See RONR 12th ed. 35:2(6), 35:4, 56:50, 57:1(2), 57:4–5, 57:10–13

[Atul Kapur]

Regarding the questions @Gary Novosielski didn't get to:

On 6/25/2023 at 5:33 PM, Tomm said:

is he/she [the maker] required to make it a primary amendment?

Once the motion has been stated by the chair, then the mover, like any other member, would have to move an amendment. 

On 6/25/2023 at 5:33 PM, Tomm said:

Would it be correct to believe that only other members (of the board) can make a "friendly amendment"?

No, not at all correct. Only members of the body that is meeting can move an amendment. If this is a membership meeting, then members of the board are participating as members of the organization and have no more rights than any other member of the organization. 

Edited June 26, 2023 at 12:32 AM by Atul Kapur

[Tomm]

But what I'm assuming is, if this is only a meeting of the board the mover can't make a friendly amendment to his/her own amendment. A "friendly amendment" is for some other member to make? In other words, a "friendly amendment" by the mover is out of order and all other rules mentioned above by Mr. N apply?

This of course is ignoring the fact that an amendment is an amendment is an amendment! 

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/25/2023 at 7:45 PM, Tomm said:

But what I'm assuming is, if this is only a meeting of the board the mover can't make a friendly amendment to his/her own amendment. A "friendly amendment" is for some other member to make? In other words, a "friendly amendment" by the mover is out of order and all other rules mentioned above by Mr. N apply?

 

No. A mover may move to amend the motion, just like anyone else.

On 6/25/2023 at 7:45 PM, Tomm said:

This of course is ignoring the fact that an amendment is an amendment is an amendment! 

 

I don't see why you'd ignore that, as it answers the question.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/25/2023 at 4:33 PM, Tomm said:

Can the maker of a motion to amend the bylaws make a friendly amendment to that amendment or is he/she required to make it a primary amendment?

Can the maker/mover modify it per 33:12 (before a motion has been stated by the chair) and does that modification have to be voted on?

Prior to the motion being stated by the chair, the motion maker may unilaterally amend the motion, as discussed in 33:12.

After the motion has been stated by the chair, the member may "request leave" to modify the motion, and the assembly may grant this request (or not). In the alternative, the member can simply make the motion as an amendment. I suppose this is, by definition, a "friendly" amendment, not that this means anything. (See below.)

On 6/25/2023 at 4:33 PM, Tomm said:

Would it be correct to believe that only other members (of the board) can make a "friendly amendment"?

No, it would not be correct to believe that. No one can make a "friendly amendment." Or another way of putting it is that the same procedure is followed for the amendment regardless of whether it is friendly.

"The term “friendly amendment” is often used to describe an amendment offered by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion, in the belief that the amendment will either improve the statement or effect of the main motion, presumably to the satisfaction of its maker, or will increase the chances of the main motion's adoption. Regardless of whether or not the maker of the main motion “accepts” the amendment, it must be opened to debate and voted on formally (unless adopted by unanimous consent) and is handled under the same rules as amendments generally (see 33:11–19)." RONR (12th ed.) 12:91

On 6/25/2023 at 7:45 PM, Tomm said:

But what I'm assuming is, if this is only a meeting of the board the mover can't make a friendly amendment to his/her own amendment. A "friendly amendment" is for some other member to make? In other words, a "friendly amendment" by the mover is out of order and all other rules mentioned above by Mr. N apply?

A "friendly amendment" is described as one "offered by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion." Under this definition, I suppose any amendment offered by the motion maker is "friendly," since one imagines the motion maker is in sympathy with the purposes of his own motion.

But whether an amendment is "friendly" is immaterial. The same rules are applicable for the amendment in any event.

Edited June 26, 2023 at 02:14 AM by Josh Martin

[Tomm]

I'm told that at this Thursdays board meeting director A will have a motion to amend a bylaw which has already been posted and that he will also be offering a Friendly Amendment to his own amendment!

I'm having a hard time accepting how the maker of the motion can make a "Friendly Amendment" to his own motion? Seems to me to be out of order and he simply needs to amend his amendment?

 

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:16 PM, Tomm said:

I'm having a hard time accepting how the maker of the motion can make a "Friendly Amendment" to his own motion? Seems to me to be out of order and he simply needs to amend his amendment?

 

Dunno what to tell you, three of us have said the opposite but we can't make you believe us.

I'll try this, though - a point of order points to a violation of the rules. What rule is violated if the member moves to amend his own motion? The onus is on the person claiming a rule is violated, after all.

What I'd question is why a member would choose to go the harder route, though. Is there a reason A wants to go this way? That reason may well be a misunderstanding of another rule, which is why I ask.

[Tomm]

On 6/25/2023 at 6:18 PM, Joshua Katz said:

What rule is violated if the member moves to amend his own motion?

What I'm hung up on is the term "Friendly Amendment."  Seems that RONR identifies those amendments coming from someone sympathetic with the purposes of the main motion and not from the original maker of the motion?  

I'm not opposed of the maker amending his own motion, just in the manner he chooses to do it!

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:38 PM, Tomm said:

What I'm hung up on is the term "Friendly Amendment."  Seems that RONR identifies those amendments coming from someone sympathetic with the purposes of the main motion and not from the original maker of the motion?  

 

Where does that second clause come from? Or are you assuming that the maker is not sympathetic with the purposes of the motion?

Also not sure why you're hung up on the term, since it means nothing procedurally. How can something be "out of order" solely because of a term with no procedural valence?

[Atul Kapur]

On 6/25/2023 at 9:38 PM, Tomm said:

What I'm hung up on is the term "Friendly Amendment." 

Okay, ignore the word "friendly." Problem solved.

[Tomm]

On 6/25/2023 at 6:40 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Where does that second clause come from?

12:91

Seems to me, (and I'm obviously wrong) that the procedure stated in 12:91 is that a Friendly Amendment comes from someone other than the maker and further reinforced by fact the maker is the one who can accept it? 

Just seems inappropriate that the maker can accept his own amendment but I get it it still has to go thru a debate and vote by the rest of the assembly. 

[Joshua Katz]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:56 PM, Tomm said:

Seems to me, (and I'm obviously wrong) that the procedure stated in 12:91 is that a Friendly Amendment comes from someone other than the maker and further reinforced by fact the maker is the one who can accept it? 

 

Who says the maker can "accept it"? As has been pointed out several times in this very thread, there is no procedure in which the maker of a motion may accept a "friendly amendment" once a motion is before the assembly.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/25/2023 at 8:16 PM, Tomm said:

I'm told that at this Thursdays board meeting director A will have a motion to amend a bylaw which has already been posted and that he will also be offering a Friendly Amendment to his own amendment!

I'm having a hard time accepting how the maker of the motion can make a "Friendly Amendment" to his own motion? Seems to me to be out of order and he simply needs to amend his amendment?

Just get over the idea of whether an amendment is "friendly," because it doesn't matter.

On 6/25/2023 at 8:38 PM, Tomm said:

What I'm hung up on is the term "Friendly Amendment."  Seems that RONR identifies those amendments coming from someone sympathetic with the purposes of the main motion and not from the original maker of the motion?  

I don't think these terms are mutually exclusive. Generally, I would assume the original maker of the motion is sympathetic with the purposes of the main motion.

But if you're hung up on the term "Friendly Amendment," just ignore it, because RONR is telling you it doesn't matter.

"The term “friendly amendment” is often used to describe an amendment offered by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion, in the belief that the amendment will either improve the statement or effect of the main motion, presumably to the satisfaction of its maker, or will increase the chances of the main motion's adoption. Regardless of whether or not the maker of the main motion “accepts” the amendment, it must be opened to debate and voted on formally (unless adopted by unanimous consent) and is handled under the same rules as amendments generally (see 33:11–19)." RONR (12th ed.) 12:91, emphasis added

On 6/25/2023 at 8:56 PM, Tomm said:

Seems to me, (and I'm obviously wrong) that the procedure stated in 12:91 is that a Friendly Amendment comes from someone other than the maker and further reinforced by fact the maker is the one who can accept it? 

Just seems inappropriate that the maker can accept his own amendment but I get it it still has to go thru a debate and vote by the rest of the assembly. 

Tomm, just to be perfectly clear, the amendment has to go through a debate and vote whether or not the maker "accepts" it. Whether the motion maker accepts it is irrelevant. Indeed, there is no reason to even ask whether the maker "accepts" it.

What is said in 12:91 is not attempting to create a new category of amendments. It's trying to clear up a common misconception in many assemblies where a "friendly amendment" is offered, and if the motion maker "accepts" the amendment as "friendly," the chair simply declares the amendment adopted. RONR is clearing up that this is not the case, and all amendments, "friendly" or not, follow the same procedures.

So there's no need to go to such great lengths to determine whether or not the amendment is "friendly." It simply doesn't matter.

Edited June 26, 2023 at 02:26 AM by Josh Martin

[puzzling]

RONR just doesn't undertain the idea of  a friendly amendment after the motion has been stated by the chair (and opened up to amendments, debate and so on)

Normally before the motion is stated by the chair the maker may change it. (Although secunders may withdraw there second) 

The problem here is that the main motion is a bylaws amendment and we presume (not sure if yhis presumption is correct) that the bylaws prescribe that proposet bylaws amendments must be notified verbatim as notification. 

In such a case the maker (and the chair) need to state the motion verbatim  as  notified just because that is what the bylaws prescribe.

If the maker wants to amend his motion he just needs to follow the normal rules of amendment of a main motion. 

The only hiccup I see is when the maker ends his first talk on the main motion with an motion to amendment it, a motion to postpone the motion indefinitely (kill the main motion with debate but without vote on the main motion) is out of order.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/26/2023 at 8:34 AM, puzzling said:

The problem here is that the main motion is a bylaws amendment and we presume (not sure if yhis presumption is correct) that the bylaws prescribe that proposet bylaws amendments must be notified verbatim as notification. 

I don't know why you would presume this. This is only the case if the bylaws so provide.

"Unless the rules require the full text of the motion, resolution, or bylaw amendment to be submitted in the notice, only the purport need be indicated; but such a statement of purport must be accurate and complete—as in “to raise the annual dues to $20”—since it will determine what amendments are in order when the motion is considered. The notice becomes invalid if the motion is amended beyond the scope of the notice (see also 35, 57)." RONR (12th ed.) 10:47

"The manner prescribed for giving notice should suit the needs of the particular assembly. For some, oral notice is sufficient; others may require written notice. Some may require only a general statement of the purport of the amendment; others may require that the exact wording of the amendment be given." RONR (12th ed.) 56:51

On 6/26/2023 at 8:34 AM, puzzling said:

The only hiccup I see is when the maker ends his first talk on the main motion with an motion to amendment it, a motion to postpone the motion indefinitely (kill the main motion with debate but without vote on the main motion) is out of order.

I don't know why this is viewed as a "hiccup," but yes, this is a correct statement.

[Atul Kapur]

The potential  "hiccup" that I see is if the maker presents an amendment and the chair accepts it without (a) confirming that  there is no objection, or (b) processing it like any other  amendment. 

If that occurs, then a member of the body that is meeting should raise a point of order.

(Of course, the chair is also obligated to check if the proposed amendment falls within the scope of notice.)