Was this Substitute Motion Out of Order?

[Wright Stuff]

At a recent convention, there was a motion from the bylaws committee to adopt the state bylaws instead of the county bylaws. That motion was followed by a SUBSTITUTE motion (from someone identifying himself as “very experienced” with RONR) to amend the county bylaws instead of amending the motion to adopt the state bylaws. I hope that’s clear. Anyway, the chair ruled the “substitute” motion out of order. The justification he used came from this paragraph:

If it is the intent of the maker of the Substitute Motion to defeat the Primary Motion it is out of order.  The Primary Motion should be acted on and if defeated, then the presiding officer is to immediately grant the floor to the maker of the substitute motion to offer a new motion. 

Was the ruling correct? If so, where can I find the cite for it? After the committee motion failed, the “expert” was given first priority to make his motion to amend the existing bylaws, which passed. 

Edited March 26, 2024 at 02:26 PM by Wright Stuff
Typo

[J. J.]

12:22 in general. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

If it is the intent of the maker of the Substitute Motion to defeat the Primary Motion it is out of order.  The Primary Motion should be acted on and if defeated, then the presiding officer is to imediately grant the floor to the maker of the substitute motion to offer a new motion. 

And where is this quotation taken from?

[Wright Stuff]

On 3/26/2024 at 2:30 AM, Atul Kapur said:

And where is this quotation taken from?

It was in an email, but I haven’t been able to find the source. It looks like a cut and paste. 

[J. J.]

An amendment that makes the adoption of a question equivalent to rejecting it is out of order (12:22 2), but that applies to any form of amendment, note merely substitution. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/25/2024 at 11:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

At a recent convention, there was a motion from the bylaws committee to adopt the state bylaws instead of the county bylaws. That motion was followed by a SUBSTITUTE motion (from someone identifying himself as “very experienced” with RONR) to amend the county bylaws instead of amending the motion to adopt the state bylaws. I hope that’s clear. Anyway, the chair ruled the “substitute” motion out of order. The justification he used came from this paragraph:

If it is the intent of the maker of the Substitute Motion to defeat the Primary Motion it is out of order.  The Primary Motion should be acted on and if defeated, then the presiding officer is to imediately grant the floor to the maker of the substitute motion to offer a new motion. 

Was the ruling correct? If so, where can I find the cite for it? After the committee motion failed, the “expert” was given first priority to make his motion to amend the existing bylaws, which passed. 

That is not a quote from RONR.  There is nothing called a Substitute Motion in RONR.  Substitute is a form of amendment.  The text of 12:22(2), which refers to motions amendments that are not in order, says:

2) One that merely makes the adoption of the amended question equivalent to a rejection of the original motion. Thus, in the motion that “our delegates be instructed to vote in favor of the increase in Federation dues,” an amendment to insert “not” before “be” is not in order because an affirmative vote on not giving a certain instruction is identical with a negative vote on giving the same instruction. But it would be in order to move to insert “not” before “to” (“instructed not to vote in favor”), since this would change the main motion into one to give different instructions.

As you can see, an amendment that reverses the sense of the original motion is very much in order.  What is not in order is an amendment that would simply cancel the original, having the same effect as if it was voted down.  So the answer to your question depends on exactly what the substitute said.  From your description it seems like it was a substantial change that would do more than simply defeat the motion, but rather adopt a different set of bylaws, and that would have been be in order.   But at this point it does not look like a point of order would be timely, at least not on that basis. 

But since the substitute motion was ultimately passed as a separate motion, I'm not sure I see how it makes a difference.

Edited March 26, 2024 at 02:46 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

At a recent convention, there was a motion from the bylaws committee to adopt the state bylaws instead of the county bylaws.

I don’t understand.

Was the intent to adopt the state bylaws in their entirety as a replacement for the existing county bylaws? (With presumably at least a few details changed so the bylaws make sense for the county.)

On 3/25/2024 at 10:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

That motion was followed by a SUBSTITUTE motion (from someone identifying himself as “very experienced” with RONR) to amend the county bylaws instead of amending the motion to adopt the state bylaws. I hope that’s clear. 

This was not in order, because the county bylaws weren’t immediately pending.

But the member could have accomplished the same purpose by moving a complete substitute for the revision which happened to be the existing county bylaws, including the member’s proposed amendments.

On 3/25/2024 at 10:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Anyway, the chair ruled the “substitute” motion out of order. The justification he used came from this paragraph:

I think the chair made the right ruling, but for the wrong reason. As I understand the facts, the member wasn’t proposing to leave the county bylaws as-is. If he was, then the chair would be correct.

As noted above, however, I don’t think the member proposing the substitute worded his motion quite right. (Although the main motion was also worded very confusingly, so the motion maker’s error was perhaps understandable.)

On 3/25/2024 at 10:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Was the ruling correct? If so, where can I find the cite for it? After the committee motion failed, the “expert” was given first priority to make his motion to amend the existing bylaws, which passed. 

It looks like everything worked out in the end, so I wouldn’t stress over it too much.

Edited March 26, 2024 at 03:58 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:57 AM, Josh Martin said:

Was the intent to adopt the state bylaws in their entirety as a replacement for the existing county bylaws? (With presumably at least a few details changed so the bylaws make sense for the county.)

Yes. If the county does not adopt their own bylaws, they have to follow the state bylaws. 

Let me try again.

The county has its own bylaws. A motion was moved that the county stop using its own bylaws and revert to the state bylaws. That motion is proper under the organization's bylaws. After the motion was made, a motion to substitute was moved that was actually in the nature of an amendment to the county bylaws. The content of the county bylaws was not the subject of the motion. The bigger question was whether to use the state bylaws or the county's bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend some of the details of the county's bylaws. 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:57 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Yes. If the county does not adopt their own bylaws, they have to follow the state bylaws. 

Let me try again.

The county has its own bylaws. A motion was moved that the county stop using its own bylaws and revert to the state bylaws. That motion is proper under the organization's bylaws. After the motion was made, a motion to substitute was moved that was actually in the nature of an amendment to the county bylaws. The content of the county bylaws was not the subject of the motion. The bigger question was whether to use the state bylaws or the county's bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend some of the details of the county's bylaws. 

 

Well, that's still confusing, but it's clear that the substitute did not simply negate the original motion, and so shouldn't have been ruled out of order.

But from what you said, the substitute language was subsequently voted on separately and adopted, so that would seem to be that.  

In any case, there's no continuing breach, so no point of order would be timely any more.  Other than academic interest, do you have an actual question at this point on how to proceed?

[Wright Stuff]

Well, I don’t know what else to offer, so I guess I’ll let it go. Yes, it was confusing to be confronted with the situation that could arise again in the future. There is not a continuing problem. My question is more educational than remedial since I’m a proverbial beginner. 

The main motion was to revert to the state bylaws and throw out the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend the county bylaws. The question was on doing away with the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to change the county bylaws instead of throwing them out.

Thanks for trying to help. It’s frustrating in that we have not been able to come up with a succinct answer in the several interactions in this thread with extremely knowledgeable people, so I don’t feel so bad that we weren’t able to come up with a succinct answer instantly during the convention. 

12:22(2) seems to me to be on point, but maybe it’s not.

Thanks for trying to help. Maybe I’ll find the answer one day. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/26/2024 at 10:57 PM, Wright Stuff said:

Yes. If the county does not adopt their own bylaws, they have to follow the state bylaws. 

Okay. This still doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll just accept for the sake of argument that it makes sense to your organization.

On 3/26/2024 at 10:57 PM, Wright Stuff said:

The county has its own bylaws. A motion was moved that the county stop using its own bylaws and revert to the state bylaws. That motion is proper under the organization's bylaws. After the motion was made, a motion to substitute was moved that was actually in the nature of an amendment to the county bylaws. The content of the county bylaws was not the subject of the motion. The bigger question was whether to use the state bylaws or the county's bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend some of the details of the county's bylaws. 

Based upon these additional (and rather strange) facts, I am still inclined to think that the chair ruled correctly on the motion to substitute, but for the wrong reasons, although I think the reasons I stated previously were also wrong. I believe the motion should have been ruled out of order on the grounds that the motion was not germane to the question of whether to "follow the state bylaws."

The chair is not correct that the member's motion was equivalent to simply rejecting the main motion, because the member was not proposing to simply reject the main motion, but was also proposing other changes to the county bylaws. I believe the chair's conclusion was correct, however, that the member's motion should wait until after the pending motion was considered.

But because I have admitted this situation makes absolutely no sense to me, I'm not sure my opinion counts for much.

On 3/27/2024 at 7:01 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Well, I don’t know what else to offer, so I guess I’ll let it go. Yes, it was confusing to be confronted with the situation that could arise again in the future. There is not a continuing problem. My question is more educational than remedial since I’m a proverbial beginner. 

The main motion was to revert to the state bylaws and throw out the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend the county bylaws. The question was on doing away with the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to change the county bylaws instead of throwing them out.

Thanks for trying to help. It’s frustrating in that we have not been able to come up with a succinct answer in the several interactions in this thread with extremely knowledgeable people, so I don’t feel so bad that we weren’t able to come up with a succinct answer instantly during the convention. 

12:22(2) seems to me to be on point, but maybe it’s not.

Thanks for trying to help. Maybe I’ll find the answer one day. 

Well, the problem is that your situation "If the county does not adopt their own bylaws, they have to follow the state bylaws," is not one which is contemplated in RONR or in parliamentary law generally. Nor, quite frankly, does it make any sense. So that's why we don't have a good answer to your question.

But if forced to answer, I would say that 12:22(2) is not applicable, because this is not equivalent to simply rejecting the main motion. If the member wanted to continue using the existing county bylaws with no amendments, that would be applicable.

I would instead suggest that 12:22(1) might be applicable. What I am gathering from your discussion is that in your organization, the choice before the assembly is:

Step One: Do we adopt our own bylaws at all, or follow the state bylaws? This is a binary choice, and amendments are not really applicable.

Step Two: If we adopt our own bylaws, in what form should those bylaws be?

Assuming my understanding of this is correct, then I think it can be reasonably argued that if a motion to rescind the county bylaws and follow the state bylaws is pending, a motion to amend the county bylaws is not germane. The concept of germaneness is discussed in more detail in RONR (12th ed.) 12:16-12:21.

In the long run, I do think your organization should reconsider this whole concept. The state bylaws quite likely contain matters which will not be applicable for a county party, because they're written for the state party, not a county party. In the alternative, what most organizations do is still require constituent units to adopt their own bylaws, but draft a template of "default" bylaws for constituent units to use as a starting point.

Edited March 27, 2024 at 12:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:33 AM, Josh Martin said:

But if forced to answer, I would say that 12:22(2) is not applicable, because this is not equivalent to simply rejecting the main motion. If the member wanted to continue using the existing county bylaws with no amendments, that would be applicable.

I would instead suggest that 12:22(1) might be applicable. What I am gathering from your discussion is that in your organization, the choice before the assembly is:

Step One: Do we adopt our own bylaws at all, or follow the state bylaws? This is a binary choice, and amendments are not really applicable.

Step Two: If we adopt our own bylaws, in what form should those bylaws be?

Assuming my understanding of this is correct, then I think it can be reasonably argued that if a motion to rescind the county bylaws and follow the state bylaws is pending, a motion to amend the county bylaws is not germane. The concept of germaneness is discussed in more detail in RONR (12th ed.) 12:16-12:21.

I agree that 12:22(2) is inapplicable, but it seems to me that if the motion that was pending was, in essence, a motion to rescind the county bylaws, the motion to amend this motion by substituting for it a motion to amend the county bylaws was in order (see 35:2(6)).

[Joshua Katz]

I'd like the know more about the proposed substitute. Was it proposing an amendment (or several) to the county bylaws, or was it a motion to "amend the county bylaws"?

[Wright Stuff]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:33 AM, Josh Martin said:

Okay. This still doesn't make any sense to me, but I'll just accept for the sake of argument that it makes sense to your organization.

The state bylaws contemplate their use by the counties if the counties do not adopt their own. There are many provisions in the state bylaws that ("Unless the county's bylaws indicate otherwise, the number of widgets..." (It really doesn't say "widgets".) The county bylaws can deviate from the state bylaws but they cannot conflict with them.

I'm not sure the organization makes any sense.

On 3/27/2024 at 8:33 AM, Josh Martin said:

Step One: Do we adopt our own bylaws at all, or follow the state bylaws? This is a binary choice, and amendments are not really applicable.

Correct. The adopted bylaws cannot be in conflict with the state bylaws.

On 3/27/2024 at 8:33 AM, Josh Martin said:

if a motion to rescind the county bylaws and follow the state bylaws is pending, a motion to amend the county bylaws is not germane.

That is exactly what I think my question is. 

On 3/27/2024 at 8:56 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree that 12:22(2) is inapplicable, but it seems to me that if the motion that was pending was, in essence, a motion to rescind the county bylaws, the motion to amend this motion by substituting for it a motion to amend the county bylaws was in order (see 35:2(6)).

That's helpful. I'll read it a few times.

On 3/27/2024 at 9:32 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I'd like the know more about the proposed substitute. Was it proposing an amendment (or several) to the county bylaws, or was it a motion to "amend the county bylaws"?

1.  Delete article III B2 [from the county bylaws] which empowers the chair to nominate up to 2 additional members of the executive committee.

2. Delete from article X [from the county bylaws] the phrase "or within the 12 months prior to becoming a party official."

3. Add a section C to article III [from the county bylaws]: A list by name of the members authorized above shall be presented to the county convention for approval."

The original main motion was to rescind the adoption of the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend the county bylaws as above. No further action is necessary. The motion to rescind the county plan failed. The subsequent motions to amend the county plan passed. (Unrelated to this question is, upon further examination, the changes to the county plan that passed did not solve any of the problems they thought they were solving.)

Edited March 27, 2024 at 01:45 PM by Wright Stuff

[Joshua Katz]

Given this information, i tend to agree with Mr. Honemann (always a safe bet anyway).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:33 AM, Josh Martin said:

I believe the motion should have been ruled out of order on the grounds that the motion was not germane to the question of whether to "follow the state bylaws."

I think the motion was germane to the question of "what bylaws shall be followed?"

[Josh Martin]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:44 AM, Wright Stuff said:

1.  Delete article III B2 [from the county bylaws] which empowers the chair to nominate up to 2 additional members of the executive committee.

2. Delete from article X [from the county bylaws] the phrase "or within the 12 months prior to becoming a party official."

3. Add a section C to article III [from the county bylaws]: A list by name of the members authorized above shall be presented to the county convention for approval."

I'm coming around to the view of my colleagues, including Mr. Honemann, that the proposed substitute was in order.

I would note, however, that if the motion for the proposed substitute was adopted, a motion to Divide the Question to consider each of these amendments individually could have been demanded by a single member.

On 3/27/2024 at 8:44 AM, Wright Stuff said:

The state bylaws contemplate their use by the counties if the counties do not adopt their own. There are many provisions in the state bylaws that ("Unless the county's bylaws indicate otherwise, the number of widgets..." (It really doesn't say "widgets".) The county bylaws can deviate from the state bylaws but they cannot conflict with them.

Okay. This still doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but it's starting to make slightly more sense.

In essence, the state party has default provisions for the operation of county parties baked into its bylaws. If a county party chooses not to adopt its own bylaws (or simply neglects to adopt its own bylaws), those provisions are controlling.

So I still don't think it's quite accurate to say that, in such circumstances, the county party is adopting "the state bylaws" or is choosing to follow "the state bylaws," but rather that the county party is choosing to follow the portions of the state bylaws that govern the operation of county parties, in the absence of a county party adopting its own bylaws.

Edited March 27, 2024 at 03:19 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

Thanks very much for the discussion. I'll just chalk this one up to "I don't get it." Maybe one day I will. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:51 AM, Wright Stuff said:

Thanks very much for the discussion. I'll just chalk this one up to "I don't get it." Maybe one day I will. 

What's there not to get. It seems rather clear that the guy "identifying himself as 'very experienced' with RONR" knew what he was talking about.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/27/2024 at 12:10 PM, Dan Honemann said:

What's there not to get. It seems rather clear that the guy "identifying himself as 'very experienced' with RONR" knew what he was talking about.

Y' don't see that every day. 🙂