Can a motion be made where amendments are not allowed

[Guest Nick]

Is it possible to make a motion where amendments to that motion are not allowed?

I'm pondering a motion that if so motioned we do not want any amendments.  Allowing amendments will open the motion to options considered  very undesirable. 

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, there are a couple of ways (maybe three):

• a preliminary main motion that prohibits amendment of the main motion (the motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it has the effect of suspending the rules, RONR (12th ed.) 10:8(7)(b))
• the mover (who has the right to speak first after the question on the adoption of the main motion has been stated by the chair) can 1) make the subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to modify the usual rules for the number or length of speeches on all pending questions, and 2) before the adoption of the above subsidiary motion, make the higher-ranking subsidiary motion, Previous Question applied to all pending questions.  If the Previous Question is adopted by a two-thirds vote and Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate is likewise adopted by a two-thirds vote, the resulting unusual parliamentary situation will be that 1) amendments are shut off until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted, and 2) the main motion will be debatable within the limits adopted when the order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate was adopted and until this order is exhausted.  So says Mr. Honemann (one of the authors of the book, who uses the motto, "Fear the Wrath of Dan" for a good reason 😐)  I am less convinced than he is.  This unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation is like a boxing match with one of the contestants having one arm tied behind his back.
• the mover can make the subsidiary motion, Previous Question, on all pending questions, the effect of the adoption of which (by a two-thirds vote) will be to shut off both amendments and debate until the order is exhausted.

Edited March 6, 2024 at 06:09 PM by Rob Elsman

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:33 AM, Guest Nick said:

Is it possible to make a motion where amendments to that motion are not allowed?

I'm pondering a motion that if so motioned we do not want any amendments.  Allowing amendments will open the motion to options considered  very undesirable. 

I concur with Mr. Elsman that the answer is yes, but all of the options to do so will require a 2/3 vote. The motion maker does not have the unilateral authority to decide his motion is immune from amendment.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/6/2024 at 10:04 AM, Rob Elsman said:

[Emphasis added]

1) make the subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to modify the usual rules for the number or length of speeches on all pending questions, and 2) before the adoption of the above subsidiary motion, make the higher-ranking subsidiary motion, Previous Question applied to all pending questions.  If the Previous Question is adopted

If the previous question applied to all pending questions is adopted then wouldn't that result in an immediate vote on (the now moot) Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, immediately followed by a vote on the main motion? With no further debate at all.

[Guest Nick]

Thanks for the quick replies!  

The meeting is a HOA meeting and the motion involves money ... meaning lots of emotions and "enthusiasm". 🙂 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/6/2024 at 5:52 PM, Guest Nick said:

Thanks for the quick replies!  

The meeting is a HOA meeting and the motion involves money ... meaning lots of emotions and "enthusiasm". 🙂 

This sounds like the type of motion which would benefit most from orderly debate—assuming the chair is knowledgeable, experienced, and up to the task.  Attempting to stifle debate will not serve to diminish emotions; it will just prevent a healthy outlet for them.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. " —John F. Kennedy

 

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/6/2024 at 3:56 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If the previous question applied to all pending questions is adopted then wouldn't that result in an immediate vote on (the now moot) Limit or Extend Limits of Debate, immediately followed by a vote on the main motion? With no further debate at all.

Mr. Honemann has previously said in another topic that the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, subsequent to the adoption of the motion, Previous Question, means that debate within the adopted limits is allowed until the order for debate is exhausted, while amendments will not be in order until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted. This gives rise to the unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation where, in this instance, the main motion is debatable but unamendable. The upshot is the elimination of the opportunity for compromise through modification.

I am much less convinced. The opportunity for compromise through modification is such a fundamental aspect of the deliberative process that I have serious reservations about his opinion.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/7/2024 at 5:31 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Honemann has previously said in another topic that the adoption of the motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, subsequent to the adoption of the motion, Previous Question, means that debate within the adopted limits is allowed until the order for debate is exhausted, while amendments will not be in order until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted. This gives rise to the unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation where, in this instance, the main motion is debatable but unamendable. The upshot is the elimination of the opportunity for compromise through modification.

I am much less convinced. The opportunity for compromise through modification is such a fundamental aspect of the deliberative process that I have serious reservations about his opinion.

Please provide a link to this topic to which you refer.

[Rob Elsman]

I am hopeless at searching this forum. Always have been. If it helps refresh your memory, you were interpreting RONR (12th ed.) 16:9 in the case where Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate had been moved before Previous Question was moved. It had been the opinion of Mr. Martin and I that Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate should be dropped when all of its affected motions in a series were already affected by the adoption of Previous Question.

M Meanwhile, I'll keep looking.

Edited March 8, 2024 at 12:04 AM by Rob Elsman

[George Mervosh]

I think this is the thread that Mr. Elsman is referring to -  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/40384-previous-question-ordered-on-series-including-both-limit-or-extend-debate-and-the-main-motion/

[Dan Honemann]

 

On 3/8/2024 at 8:03 AM, George Mervosh said:

I think this is the thread that Mr. Elsman is referring to -  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/40384-previous-question-ordered-on-series-including-both-limit-or-extend-debate-and-the-main-motion/

Many thanks for providing this.

In reviewing this thread, it appears that what I said in my penultimate response may rightly be interpreted as meaning what Mr. Elsman says it means.  Offhand, I'm inclined to doubt that this is what I really meant to say, so this is going to require some thought on my part.

I promise to return and post more after I have had a chance to think about it.

 

[Rob Elsman]

I don't know how Mr. Mervosh does it. He's a wizard. Many thanks for your help.

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, Mr. Honemann, for your patience and your persistence.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:04 PM, Rob Elsman said:

the mover (who has the right to speak first after the question on the adoption of the main motion has been stated by the chair) can 1) make the subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to modify the usual rules for the number or length of speeches on all pending questions, and 2) before the adoption of the above subsidiary motion, make the higher-ranking subsidiary motion, Previous Question applied to all pending questions.  If the Previous Question is adopted by a two-thirds vote and Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate is likewise adopted by a two-thirds vote, the resulting unusual parliamentary situation will be that 1) amendments are shut off until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted, and 2) the main motion will be debatable within the limits adopted when the order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate was adopted and until this order is exhausted.  So says Mr. Honemann (one of the authors of the book, who uses the motto, "Fear the Wrath of Dan" for a good reason 😐)  I am less convinced than he is.  This unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation is like a boxing match with one of the contestants having one arm tied behind his back.

Why not just move to limit debate by forbidding the making of any amendments? 

[Rob Elsman]

On 3/8/2024 at 3:10 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Why not just move to limit debate by forbidding the making of any amendments?

Depending on the form of the motion made, this might or might not be an option. My concern focuses on the motion not being admissible on account of improper form. With care, though, I can see how this might be possible.

[Gary Novosielski]

 

 

Your RONR must be the director's cut.  My 15:2 only has two ways that debate can be limited. 🙁

[Rob Elsman]

But my 15:8 is suspendable. 😆

[Tomm]

On 3/8/2024 at 2:10 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Why not just move to limit debate by forbidding the making of any amendments? 

Pardon my inclusion to this thread but, it seems to me that there's a difference between "limiting" debate, which includes the number of times and length of time a member can speak, and totally "excluding" debate all together?

Isn't it a fundamental right of membership that a member cannot be deprived of their rights to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate and to vote? (1:4)

Seems to me that as long as a motion received a second, it would always be in order to allow for some sort of debate? Can you really allow a member to make a motion that no other member can comment on? 

I don't understand why a member can be deprived of that fundamental right of membership? 

 

[George Mervosh]

On 3/8/2024 at 10:28 PM, Tomm said:

Pardon my inclusion to this thread but, it seems to me that there's a difference between "limiting" debate, which includes the number of times and length of time a member can speak, and totally "excluding" debate all together?

Isn't it a fundamental right of membership that a member cannot be deprived of their rights to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate and to vote? (1:4)

Seems to me that as long as a motion received a second, it would always be in order to allow for some sort of debate? Can you really allow a member to make a motion that no other member can comment on? 

I don't understand why a member can be deprived of that fundamental right of membership? 

 

The motion for the Previous Question can be moved immediately by the maker of the motion once he is assigned the floor.  He can even speak to his motion and conclude by moving for the Previous Question.  Also, see 25:18 as an example of how to move to suspend the rules and adopt a motion without debate or amendment.  When the assembly by a 2/3 vote says there will be no (or no further) debate, there will be no debate.  

[Josh Martin]

On 3/8/2024 at 9:28 PM, Tomm said:

Pardon my inclusion to this thread but, it seems to me that there's a difference between "limiting" debate, which includes the number of times and length of time a member can speak, and totally "excluding" debate all together?

I would first notice that this isn't, in fact, the question that was asked. The question was whether it was permissible to prohibit amendments. Which it is, but only by a 2/3 vote.

On 3/6/2024 at 10:33 AM, Guest Nick said:

Is it possible to make a motion where amendments to that motion are not allowed?

On 3/8/2024 at 3:10 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Why not just move to limit debate by forbidding the making of any amendments? 

But in any event, to your question of "it seems to me that there's a difference between "limiting" debate, which includes the number of times and length of time a member can speak, and totally "excluding" debate all together?"

Yes, there is no doubt that there is a difference between these things, and there are different motions for them. But either of them may be accomplished, by a 2/3 vote.

On 3/8/2024 at 9:28 PM, Tomm said:

Isn't it a fundamental right of membership that a member cannot be deprived of their rights to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate and to vote? (1:4)

The full quotation is as follows:

"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings." RONR (12th ed.) 1:4, emphasis added

This principle is elaborated on further in the section on Suspend the Rules.

"Rules protecting a basic right of the individual member cannot be suspended. Thus, while generally applicable limits on debate and the making of motions may be imposed by motions such as the Previous Question, the rules may not be suspended so as to deny any particular member the right to attend meetings, make motions or nominations, speak in debate, give previous notice, or vote. These basic rights may be curtailed only through disciplinary proceedings." RONR (12th ed.) 25:11

So the assembly can't single out a member and deprive that member of their right to speak in debate. But the assembly can, by a 2/3 vote, limit debate, or even eliminate it altogether.

On 3/8/2024 at 9:28 PM, Tomm said:

Seems to me that as long as a motion received a second, it would always be in order to allow for some sort of debate? Can you really allow a member to make a motion that no other member can comment on? 

By a 2/3 vote, the assembly is free to limit debate on a motion, or even to eliminate it altogether. So yes, a member could "make a motion that no other member can comment on," provided he can get a 2/3 vote to end debate.

The member could make his own speech on the motion and conclude his remarks by moving the Previous Question. If adopted, there will have technically been some debate, although only the motion maker will have spoken. The motion maker could even move the Previous Question immediately, without speaking in debate first.

My general experience is that in most assemblies, trying to pull something like this is frowned upon. But it is nonetheless in order. Such motions might receive more support in assemblies with a great deal of business to attend to.

While these are the rules in RONR, I will also note that some organizations do adopt their own special rules of order to restrict practices like this and ensure there is still some debate, which an assembly is free to do. I am aware of assemblies which adopt rules providing, for example:

• That the Previous Question cannot be moved at the conclusion of a speaker's remarks in debate.
• That the Previous Question cannot be moved until there have been at least X speakers (or X period of time has passed).
• That, even after the Previous Question is adopted, at least X speakers for and X speakers against the motion are permitted before taking a vote.
• I am even aware of some assemblies providing that every member has a right to speak at least once, notwithstanding an order for the Previous Question. I really don't recommend this, except perhaps in a very small assembly.

Another option would be to require a higher vote for the Previous Question in certain circumstances, rather than prohibiting it altogether in certain circumstances.

On 3/8/2024 at 9:28 PM, Tomm said:

I don't understand why a member can be deprived of that fundamental right of membership? 

The rule is that no individual member can deprived of that right. The assembly is free to apply limits which are applicable to all members.

Edited March 9, 2024 at 02:06 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

For purposes of this discussion let's take for granted that, if a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate is the immediately pending question when a motion is made and adopted ordering the previous question (no matter in what form), this motion to limit or extend the limits of debate will once again become the immediately pending question.  I understand that even this is disputed, but to reach the more complicated question it must be assumed to be correct.

The question as I understand it is this: If the previous question is ordered on all pending questions when a main motion, a motion to amend the main motion, and a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate are pending, and the motion to limit or extend the limits of debate is then adopted, what effect, if any, will this have on the amendability of the pending motion to amend. 

As I think I indicated in the earlier thread, in my opinion the adoption of a motion to limit or extend the limits of debate, which requires a two-thirds vote, is sufficient to supersede any part of a previously adopted order with which it conflicts. As a consequence, it is certainly possible that this may lead to a situation in which a pending main motion (or motion to amend, etc.) may be debatable but not amendable.

I do not know why Mr. Elsman considers this to be an "unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation".  The simplest response to the question originally asked is to move to suspend the rules which interfere with prohibiting any amendment of the motion Guest Nick has in mind.  Such a motion can be made either before or after this motion has been introduced.  I think the reason why Mr. Elswood suggested his second, extremely convoluted solution to the question asked may simply have been to raise this contested issue once again.

[Rob Elsman]

I'll ask Mr. Elswood. He's right here with me. 😁

Seriously, I mentioned it because the question has been asked multiple times on this forum whether there is a way to have an "up or down" vote on a main motion, by which is presumably meant the elimination of the opportunity for compromise through modification. It turns out that there is, in fact, a path to do this using only subsidiary motions lined up in a certain way.

This parliamentary situation is, in my mind, bizarre. We see a lot of motions that are amendable and undebatable, but we do not see motions that are debatable and unamendable. That is because the deliberative process focuses the assembly on reaching a compromise through modification—as it should.

The upshot is that I will have to mention this path whenever the "up or down" question is raised again, though I continue to have grave reservations about it.

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/9/2024 at 9:44 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I'll ask Mr. Elswood. He's right here with me. 😁

Sorry about that.  😀

 

On 3/9/2024 at 9:44 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Seriously, I mentioned it because the question has been asked multiple times on this forum whether there is a way to have an "up or down" vote on a main motion, by which is presumably meant the elimination of the opportunity for compromise through modification. It turns out that there is, in fact, a path to do this using only subsidiary motions lined up in a certain way.

This parliamentary situation is, in my mind, bizarre. We see a lot of motions that are amendable and undebatable, but we do not see motions that are debatable and unamendable. That is because the deliberative process focuses the assembly on reaching a compromise through modification—as it should.

The upshot is that I will have to mention this path whenever the "up or down" question is raised again, though I continue to have grave reservations about it.

I simply don't understand this at all. When such questions are asked, why not suggest moving to suspend the rules which interfere with prohibiting any amendment?  Why do you see a need to suggest doing it in your extraordinarily convoluted solution?

[J. J.]

On 3/9/2024 at 10:18 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I simply don't understand this at all. When such questions are asked, why not suggest moving to suspend the rules which interfere with prohibiting any amendment?  Why do you see a need to suggest doing it in your extraordinarily convoluted solution?

I would have taken Mr. Gerber's initial post to be just that (if expressed a bit tongue in cheek).  

A motion "to suspend the rules and prohibit amendment of the main motion," would have the effect of limiting debate.  Motions to amend are debatable when the motion to which they are applied are debatable.  If amendments are prohibited, then the ability to debate them is also prohibited.  

[Rob Elsman]

I don't mean to imply that rules cannot be suspended. Much of the common parliamentary law is suspendable. My point is that the "vanilla" rules in the book can apparently be used to reach this bizarre result. This, for me, is like the rabbit hole to Alice's Wonderland. Serious reservations are raised in my mind that the premises of the argument are correct.