Was this secondary amendment out of order?

[Drake Savory]

Primary amendment was "cancel the meeting on June 1st".  Secondary amendment was to basically strike out the entire amendment and change it to "make the June 1st meeting a virtual meeting."  I thought that this was out of order because passing the secondary amendment in effect defeats the primary amendment but looking it up, it bans that at the amendment/main motion level - not secondary/primary.  It didn't change the form of the amendment so that's OK, and I know an amendment can make a motion into it's opposite but I can't shake the feeling that because the secondary amendment completely eliminates all trace of the primary amendment that it was out of order.

Was it and why?

[Atul Kapur]

The 2⁰ amendment is more than just a nullification of the 1⁰ amendment, unless the June 1 meeting was originally planned to be virtual, so the 2⁰ amendment is in order. 

If the 2⁰ said to insert the word "not" before cancel, that would be a nullification of the 1⁰ amendment and would be not in order.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:49 PM, Drake Savory said:

Primary amendment was "cancel the meeting on June 1st".  Secondary amendment was to basically strike out the entire amendment and change it to "make the June 1st meeting a virtual meeting."  I thought that this was out of order because passing the secondary amendment in effect defeats the primary amendment but looking it up, it bans that at the amendment/main motion level - not secondary/primary.  It didn't change the form of the amendment so that's OK, and I know an amendment can make a motion into it's opposite but I can't shake the feeling that because the secondary amendment completely eliminates all trace of the primary amendment that it was out of order.

Was it and why?

I don't believe it was out of order.  The secondary amendment would not simply negate the first, it would change the status of the June 1st meeting from canceled to virtual.  That's germane and substantial.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/5/2024 at 3:49 PM, Drake Savory said:

Primary amendment was "cancel the meeting on June 1st". 

Is this supposed to be an example of a subsidiary motion to amend a main motion?  Doesn't look like one to me.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes it would help to know what the main motion was, to which "cancel the meeting on June 1st" was a primary amendment.  It might turn out that the primary wasn't in order in the first place, which might render the secondary irrelevant, or perhaps make it in order as a primary.

Edited April 6, 2024 at 12:05 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

On 4/5/2024 at 12:49 PM, Drake Savory said:

I thought that this was out of order because passing the secondary amendment in effect defeats the primary amendment but looking it up, it bans that at the amendment/main motion level - not secondary/primary. 

What is the "it" here? RONR does not prohibit germane primary amendments that happen to defeat the point of the main motion. To strike out "commend" and replace it with "censure" is a valid amendment, for instance.

[Rob Elsman]

This is a mess because too much information has been left out. Let's start over. Please provide the exact text of the relevant paragraph of the main motion at the time when the primary amendment was made. Then, provide the full text of the primary amendment at the time the secondary amendment was made. Finally, please provide the full text of the secondary amendment at the time it was made.

[Drake Savory]

The original motion was to adopt the calendar of meetings for 2024-2025.  Note that the list of meeting did not indicate in-person or virtual but the presumption is that all meetings are in person unless specified.

The primary amendment was to eliminate one of the meetings on the calendar. by amending the calendar.  "I move to eliminate the June 1st meeting."  The secondary amendment intended to reinstate the meeting (which has not been eliminated yet) by striking the entire primary amendment and substituting to make June 1st a virtual meeting.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:30 PM, Joshua Katz said:

What is the "it" here? RONR does not prohibit germane primary amendments that happen to defeat the point of the main motion

But it does not allow an amendment that if passed would reject the main motion.  Example given in 12:22(2)

 

[Rob Elsman]

For organizations that do not have regularly scheduled meetings established in the bylaws, it is not in order to adopt a main motion with a "calendar of meetings" for a whole year, since doing so would interfere with the freedom of each session. Each meeting, the assembly must adopt a main motion to schedule the time (and place) of the next meeting, and this needs to be done early enough in the meeting that it will be possible to postpone main motions thereto.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/6/2024 at 10:20 AM, Drake Savory said:

But it does not allow an amendment that if passed would reject the main motion.  Example given in 12:22(2)

 

That's not applicable in this case.   Adopting an amendment to strike cancel and insert reschedule (to online or whatever) does nothing to the main motion, it only affects the primary amendment.  

Rejecting the main motion would mean not adopting any schedule of meetings at all, and neither amendment does that.  Read 12:22 carefully. Rejecting is not the same as just contradicting the main motion.  Rejecting in this context means having exactly the same result as if everyone voted No on the main motion.  Clearly that's not the case with either amendment.

The secondary amendment is fine, because it deals with what to do about the June 1st meeting.

Edited April 6, 2024 at 05:04 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Rob Elsman]

If I understand the new facts correctly, I have to disagree with Mr. Novosielski.  As I see it, the effect of adopting the secondary amendment is the same as rejecting the primary amendment.  Therefore, were I in the chair, I would rule that the secondary amendment was not in order.

[Rob Elsman]

One more thing:

For one moment, let's play like the main motion was admissible (it is not, as I explained earlier).  It is my opinion (without even having seen the text of the main motion--I'm just going on a description of it), the main motion encompasses a series of independent, free-standing proposals that have been moved under one overarching main motion to adopt this "calendar of meetings".  If I am right about this, any member could have demanded a separate vote on the scheduling of the June meeting.  The other (eleven?) meetings could have been voted on as a group, and the question of the adoption of the motion to schedule a June meeting considered thereafter.  Since this is the case, the primary amendment would not be in order, since the effect of adopting the primary amendment would be the same as the effect of rejecting the main motion to schedule the June meeting. 

[Dan Honemann]

I think Mr. Novosielski has this right.

Although we are still a little short on facts, it would appear that the motion to amend the main motion was a motion to strike out a paragraph from the main motion (more detailed facts may prove otherwise).  If so, this opened the paragraph that would be struck out to improvement by secondary amendment (see 12:51).

[Rob Elsman]

I appreciate the picture of the main motion that you have drawn up in your mind.  For the lack of sufficient information, I had imaged in my own mind that the primary amendment was a motion to strike out words, in which case the secondary amendment to strike out and insert words would not have been in order.  All this goes back to my earlier request for the exact text of the relevant part of the main motion that went unfulfilled.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/6/2024 at 1:59 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I appreciate the picture of the main motion that you have drawn up in your mind.  For the lack of sufficient information, I had imaged in my own mind that the primary amendment was a motion to strike out words, in which case the secondary amendment to strike out and insert words would not have been in order.  All this goes back to my earlier request for the exact text of the relevant part of the main motion that went unfulfilled.

We certainly are in agreement on this point.  

[Josh Martin]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:49 PM, Drake Savory said:

Primary amendment was "cancel the meeting on June 1st".  Secondary amendment was to basically strike out the entire amendment and change it to "make the June 1st meeting a virtual meeting."

For starters, I'll assume for the sake of argument that canceling the meeting on June 1st or holding the June 1st meeting virtually are both permissible options under the organization's bylaws.

On 4/5/2024 at 2:49 PM, Drake Savory said:

I thought that this was out of order because passing the secondary amendment in effect defeats the primary amendment but looking it up, it bans that at the amendment/main motion level - not secondary/primary

The rule in question is equally applicable regardless of whether it is applied to an amendment to a main motion or to an amendment to a primary amendment, but the full text of the rule is as follows:

"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." RONR (12th ed.) 12:22(2)

That is, the text does not say that an amendment which has the effect of defeating the main motion (or in this case, the primary amendment) is out of order. Rather, what the text says is that an amendment which only has the effect of defeating the main motion (or in this case, the primary amendment) is out of order.

So I suppose in this case, it would be out of order to insert the word "not" before the word "cancel" or to strike the word "cancel" and to insert the word "hold," since that would not accomplish anything other than defeating the primary amendment, which can be accomplished by simply voting the primary amendment down. But to make the June 1st meeting a virtual meeting instead is a permissible secondary amendment. This is still germane to the question of what do about the June meeting, and it proposes an option that is different than the main motion (hold an in-person meeting on June 1st) and the proposed amendment (cancel the June meeting).

A motion to reschedule the June 1st meeting to some other date would also be a permissible secondary amendment.

On 4/6/2024 at 11:48 AM, Rob Elsman said:

For organizations that do not have regularly scheduled meetings established in the bylaws, it is not in order to adopt a main motion with a "calendar of meetings" for a whole year, since doing so would interfere with the freedom of each session. Each meeting, the assembly must adopt a main motion to schedule the time (and place) of the next meeting, and this needs to be done early enough in the meeting that it will be possible to postpone main motions thereto.

I disagree. Organizations which schedule their meetings by resolution are free to establish a calendar of meetings. This calendar is, of course, subject to change later (as any other main motion would be). So this does not interfere with the freedom of each session.

Edited April 7, 2024 at 12:45 PM by Josh Martin

[Drake Savory]

On 4/6/2024 at 11:59 AM, Rob Elsman said:

All this goes back to my earlier request for the exact text of the relevant part of the main motion that went unfulfilled.

"I move to adopt the proposed calendar."

[Rob Elsman]

If, as you say, the exact text of the main motion is, "I move to adopt the proposed calendar", then the primary amendment, "...cancel the meeting on June 1st" is not in order on account that the primary amendment does not propose to modify the text of the main motion.

For some reason that I do not understand, the original poster and I are not communicating in a meaningful way, so I am going to bow out of this topic with the hope that someone else can do a better job than I can.

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/6/2024 at 7:36 PM, Drake Savory said:

"I move to adopt the proposed calendar."

I think what we need to see is what the "proposed calendar" looked like.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/6/2024 at 12:27 PM, Rob Elsman said:

If I understand the new facts correctly, I have to disagree with Mr. Novosielski.  As I see it, the effect of adopting the secondary amendment is the same as rejecting the primary amendment.  Therefore, were I in the chair, I would rule that the secondary amendment was not in order.

Rejecting the primary amendment would mean leaving the original in-person meeting intact as in the main motion.  That is not what the secondary motion did.  Instead, it proposed an online meeting—a very different outcome.  On this point I agree with Mr. Martin.

Edited April 7, 2024 at 01:05 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Drake Savory]

I've put my finger on what was bothering me about the whole thing

1)  The secondary amendment completely eliminated the primary amendment 

2)  Was directly contrary to the primary amendment in terms of having a meeting or not.

Once I figured that out, I see where thinking of the secondary as a substitute amendment, now it makes a whole lot more sense.

[Wright Stuff]

On 4/7/2024 at 2:13 PM, Drake Savory said:

I see where thinking of the secondary as a substitute amendment, now it makes a whole lot more sense.

Please elaborate for those of us with similar questions following along. 

[Dan Honemann]

After a bit of prompting, we are told that the main motion pending was: "I move to adopt the proposed calendar."  We have not been provided with this "proposed calendar" which is incorporated by reference into and constitutes a part of the main motion.  

We are then told that, while this motion was pending, the following motion was made: "I move to eliminate the June 1st meeting." This we are told was a motion to amend the pending main motion, but if so it certainly is not in proper form.  Ordinarily, we might be able to put it in proper form, but we simply do not know enough about the pending main motion to enable us to do so.

Then we are told that a motion was made to amend the pending motion to amend "by striking the entire primary amendment and substituting to make June 1st a virtual meeting" and are asked if this is a proper form of secondary amendment.  It is simply not possible to answer this question prior to being provided with the facts needed to put what has been purported to be the proposed primary amendment in order.