Germane Amendments

[Billy D]

In a recent Special Town Meeting that was called to pass a budget, there were two other Articles warned for voters to decide. The one in question for discussion here read :

Shall the voters of the Town of Washington vote on all public questions by Australian ballot pursuant to 17 VSA 2680 (d) ? 

At the time of the meeting, the Selectboard Chair felt that she wanted to amend the warned question to be more specific, and so a motion was made to amend the question to :

Shall the voters of the Town of Washington vote on voter submitted petitions by Australian ballot pursuant to 17 VSA 2680 (d) ?

 

As you can see, the amendment simply substitutes one type of voting category for another, which changes the question altogether. In my view, this originally warned question may not be amended as such., because it becomes a completely different question, and the very purpose for establishing (by statute) the criteria for a public warning is negated.  Do the following two sentiments validate my analysis?

1 -- “An amendment must always be germane — that is, closely related to or having bearing on the subject of the motion to be amended. This means that no new subject can be introduced under pretext of being an amendment.” (RONR, 12th ed.: 12:6)

2 -- "Remember that a Town Meeting can’t take up an issue unless it is warned. The same general principle applies to amendments. You can’t take an article to buy a truck and amend it to buy a road grader, because the amendment raises a subject that hasn’t been warned. For the same reason, you can’t convert an article to raise money by taxes to an article to borrow money to pay something. Amendments must be germane to the motion they seek to amend, meaning that the amendment relates to the motion. An amendment cannot introduce a new and independent question or raise an issue (disguised as an amendment) previously decided by the assembly." (The Vermont Institute for Government)

I raised a Point of Order, and a muddled conversation ensued and the process continued. The "amended" question passed. It is my belief that this is an invalid addition to our town's voting allowances and must be struck down post-passage. It seems to violate both Robert's Rules, and State of Vermont statutes establishing warning criteria for Town meetings. 

Any thoughts?

Billy D.

 

[Atul Kapur]

The opinion of the body is what decides such an issue, so your point of order was appropriate. As you disagree with the apparent ruling it was valid, you should have appealed from the ruling.

FWIW, I am of the opinion that the amendment was in order. 

It was germane to the subject of "what do we vote on by ballot?"

It was within the scope of notice of the motion that was warned. The warned motion was about all public questions and the amendment restricted the application to only petitions. So, i understand that it wasn't a substitute of one category for another but, rather, a narrowing of the application of the motion. It is equivalent to a warned motion to buy a fleet of trucks and amending that to only buy one truck. Note that going in the other direction in either case would be out of order (i.e., amending a warned motion to buy one truck to expand it to buying a fleet or amending a motion for ballot votes on petitions to expand it to all public questions).

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Dr. Kapur's response immediately above.  He explained it very well.

[Weldon Merritt]

I agree with both of my colleagues above insofar as RONR is concerned. But I also note that there might be an applicate statute that would disallow the amendment, although I doubt it.

For whatever it is worth, if the quote from tie Vermont Institute for Government accurately reflects what the statute provides, I don't think it would preclude the amendment, either. But you would need to look at the actual statute and possible consult with an attorney.

[Josh Martin]

On 5/13/2024 at 10:47 PM, Billy D said:

As you can see, the amendment simply substitutes one type of voting category for another, which changes the question altogether.

I do not agree that this "changes the question altogether."

On 5/13/2024 at 10:47 PM, Billy D said:

In my view, this originally warned question may not be amended as such., because it becomes a completely different question, and the very purpose for establishing (by statute) the criteria for a public warning is negated.  Do the following two sentiments validate my analysis?

With respect to the rules in RONR, it seems to me that the amendment in question is in order. It clearly meets the standard of germaneness, and I'm generally inclined to think it would even meet the stricter standard of scope of notice.

Now, whether this meets the requirement of Vermont rules pertaining to public notice is a very different question, but that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum and the question should be directed to an attorney.

On 5/13/2024 at 10:47 PM, Billy D said:

Do the following two sentiments validate my analysis?

1 -- “An amendment must always be germane — that is, closely related to or having bearing on the subject of the motion to be amended. This means that no new subject can be introduced under pretext of being an amendment.” (RONR, 12th ed.: 12:6)

This rule does not support your position. The amendment in question is absolutely germane, at least under the standards in RONR.

On 5/13/2024 at 10:47 PM, Billy D said:

2 -- "Remember that a Town Meeting can’t take up an issue unless it is warned. The same general principle applies to amendments. You can’t take an article to buy a truck and amend it to buy a road grader, because the amendment raises a subject that hasn’t been warned. For the same reason, you can’t convert an article to raise money by taxes to an article to borrow money to pay something. Amendments must be germane to the motion they seek to amend, meaning that the amendment relates to the motion. An amendment cannot introduce a new and independent question or raise an issue (disguised as an amendment) previously decided by the assembly." (The Vermont Institute for Government)

I can't speak to that. You should consult with an attorney familiar with state laws governing town meetings in this matter.