Can committee move to amend motion it also wishes to speak against?

[Guest Peter Deg]

The property committee of our organization has learned of a proposal from the community relations committee to transfer a piece of land to another nonprofit.  The community relations committee will move this at the next meeting of the organization. The property committee  is strongly opposed to this transfer but  thinks that the vote to transfer by the organization's assembly will be adopted.  The property committee is trying to understand if there is anything in RONR that would forbid them from doing both of the following at the next meeting of the organization.

1. Move to  amend the main motion  transfer by adding  a language stating the land will revert to the organization if the other non-profit dissolves in the next 10 years.

2. Speak against the main motion to transfer the land and recommend that the assembly vote no.

Does it matter if they take the actions in that order? In other words, if the amendment passes, then the committee is speaking against the motion that contains the property committee's amendment.  But that is different than speaking against their own motion, right?

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/23/2023 at 9:44 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

The property committee of our organization has learned of a proposal from the community relations committee to transfer a piece of land to another nonprofit.  The community relations committee will move this at the next meeting of the organization. The property committee  is strongly opposed to this transfer but  thinks that the vote to transfer by the organization's assembly will be adopted.  The property committee is trying to understand if there is anything in RONR that would forbid them from doing both of the following at the next meeting of the organization.

1. Move to  amend the main motion  transfer by adding  a language stating the land will revert to the organization if the other non-profit dissolves in the next 10 years.

2. Speak against the main motion to transfer the land and recommend that the assembly vote no.

Does it matter if they take the actions in that order? In other words, if the amendment passes, then the committee is speaking against the motion that contains the property committee's amendment.  But that is different than speaking against their own motion, right?

A member may move the adoption of an amendment such as the one you have described, and thereafter speak against adoption of the main motion regardless of whether or not the amendment has been adopted.

[Rob Elsman]

Speedy Fingers has had his coffee, I see. 🙂

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/23/2023 at 10:23 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Speedy Fingers has had his coffee, I see. 🙂

"Speedy Fingers"?  You've got to be kidding.  🙂 

[Guest Peter Deg]

Thank you!

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/23/2023 at 11:42 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Thank you!

In what is probably an excess of caution, let me add that during consideration of the amendment debate must be confined to the desirability of the amendment, and must not extend to the merits of the motion to be amended except as may be necessary to determine whether the amendment is advisable (RONR, 12th ed., 12:7(5)).  Thereafter, when the main motion is again immediately pending, the maker of the motion that was made to amend it may speak against its adoption, whether or not his amendment was adopted.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/23/2023 at 9:44 AM, Guest Peter Deg said:

Does it matter if they take the actions in that order? In other words, if the amendment passes, then the committee is speaking against the motion that contains the property committee's amendment.  But that is different than speaking against their own motion, right?

Well, timing is one issue.  Bear in mind that when the motion is pending from one committee, another committee's report has already happened, or has not yet happened, but it's certainly not happening then.  So it would be motions (e.g. to amend) of individual members, and not those of the whole other committee that would in order at that time.  Nevertheless, I think it would be in order for a member of the other committee to mention in debate that her committee had decided to oppose the motion, or to support a particular amendment.  It would not be in order to refer to anything that was done in deliberations of the committee, only what it had concluded by majority vote.  Look for other opinions on this pont.

As far as opposing your own successful amendment when considering final passage, There's nothing wrong with that.  It is common to offer an amendment to a motion you oppose, in an attempt to mitigate the damage should the motion be adopted.  The fact that you supported an amendment does not imply you must or should support final passage.

Indeed, it is not unheard of for people to offer amendments that intentionally make a motion less palatable, and make defeat more likely.  This is referred to as a "poison pill" amendment.  It can certainly be criticized as not being offered in good faith, but it does occur, and of course those who supported the amendment would certainly opposed final passage.

Also, it could be that after your favored amendment was agreed to, someone else offered another amendment on a different portion of the main motion that turned it into something unacceptable.  You could probably come up with other examples in which favoring an amendment was unrelated to favoring final passage.

Edited September 23, 2023 at 05:40 PM by Gary Novosielski