Workaround for Prohibition on Speaking against one's on Motion

[Weldon Merritt]

As we know, RONR prohibits a member speaking against his own motion, even after it has been amended. He may, of course, speak against the amendment. What I am wondering is, if in the course of doing so, he may legitimately say something like, "I vehemently oppose the amendment, which completely changes the intent of my motion. I urge the members to vote against the amendment, and if it is nevertheless adopted, I cannot support the amended motion"?

In the course of typing the question, I think I managed to come up with the probable answer. Such a statement probably would not be in order for two reasons: (1) it impermissibly goes into the merits of the main motion; and (2) it still amounts in essence to speaking against the member's own motion. But I am posting the question anyway to see if anyone has other thoughts.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Honemann's response in another topic, in effect, moving to go on record not supporting something, is quite clever. The mover would then be in a position to speak in favor of his own motion.

I have not made up my mind whether this is too clever by half. The adoption of a motion puts the society on record. There is nothing added by the language in the motion. Were I in the chair, I might well be inclined to see through the veil and rule that the maker could not speak in favor of the motion, since speaking in favor is equivalent to speaking in opposition if the motion were more forthrightly worded.

Edited August 21, 2024 at 04:05 PM by Rob Elsman

[Josh Martin]

On 8/21/2024 at 10:22 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

As we know, RONR prohibits a member speaking against his own motion, even after it has been amended. He may, of course, speak against the amendment. What I am wondering is, if in the course of doing so, he may legitimately say something like, "I vehemently oppose the amendment, which completely changes the intent of my motion. I urge the members to vote against the amendment, and if it is nevertheless adopted, I cannot support the amended motion"?

I don't see a problem with this statement.

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/21/2024 at 1:47 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't see a problem with this statement.

I don't either. He might even announce his intention to withdraw his main motion, as amended.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/21/2024 at 1:47 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't see a problem with this statement.

 

On 8/21/2024 at 2:04 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I don't either. He might even announce his intention to withdraw his main motion, as amended.

I agree with both statements above.

[Weldon Merritt]

Well, it looks like I may have been too skeptical of my own initial thoughts. I particularly like @Rob Elsman's suggestion of stating an intention to withdraw (or more accurately, to ask permission to withdraw) the MM if the amendment is adopted. RONR 43:25 clearly recognizes a request to withdraw a motion as a legitimate way of showing opposition to the motion. So that may be a safer way to go avoid the possibility of a Point of Order against a more direct statement of opposition.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 11:22 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

As we know, RONR prohibits a member speaking against his own motion, even after it has been amended.

Where does it say he can't speak against the motion after it has been amended in a way that completely changes the intent of the motion?

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 12:03 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I have not made up my mind whether this is too clever by half. The adoption of a motion puts the society on record. There is nothing added by the language in the motion. Were I in the chair, I might well be inclined to see through the veil and rule that the maker could not speak in favor of the motion, since speaking in favor is equivalent to speaking in opposition if the motion were more forthrightly worded.

I don't understand what you mean by this.  Is it the language in the motion about the society going "on record" that you object to?

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/21/2024 at 5:06 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Is it the language in the motion about the society going "on record" that you object to?

In part, I do object to the language of the motion. Had the motion simply proposed the society's opposition to whatever, it would be quite clear that the mover could speak in favor of the adoption of the motion. Your suggestion left me the impression of a too clever attempt simply to circumvent the rule against speaking against one's own motion.

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/21/2024 at 5:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Where does it say he can't speak against the motion after it has been amended in a way that completely changes the intent of the motion?

I beg you to elaborate on this subject.

I think most of us believe the mover's option to express his opposition to his main motion, as amended, is to request that the objectionable main motion be withdrawn; however, I do not recall any of the authors explicitly opining about this, and I, for one, would greatly appreciate some clarity on the matter.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 6:15 PM, Rob Elsman said:

In part, I do object to the language of the motion. Had the motion simply proposed the society's opposition to whatever, it would be quite clear that the mover could speak in favor of the adoption of the motion. Your suggestion left me the impression of a too clever attempt simply to circumvent the rule against speaking against one's own motion.

I still don't understand.  Do you have a similar problem with the motions using this phrase in 10:3 and 10:12?

[Rob Elsman]

If the society opposes something, it should just say so like that. It is superfluous to mention going on the record, since the adoption or rejection of the motion will have that effect, anyway. So, for example: "I move that the [society] oppose the proposal currently before the school district's board of education to build a new high school."

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 6:33 PM, Rob Elsman said:

If the society opposes something, it should just say so like that. It is superfluous to mention going on the record, since the adoption or rejection of the motion will have that effect, anyway. So, for example: "I move that the [society] oppose the proposal currently before the school district's board of education to build a new high school."

So I gather you do have the same objection to the use of this phrase in the motion in 10:3.  Using this phrase in a motion may be superfluous, as you believe it is, but it certainly doesn't render the motion improper, and certainly isn't an attempt to be "clever", and to raise some sort of "veil" for the chair to see through.

[Rob Elsman]

I have not said that the suggested language is not in order, but I am about half-a-mind that the mover cannot use this confusing language as a ruse to circumvent the rule prohibiting speaking against one's own motion, as I have already explained. This might well be just too much fancy-dancing.

[Dan Honemann]

 

On 8/21/2024 at 6:51 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I have not said that the suggested language is not in order, but I am about half-a-mind that the mover cannot use this confusing language as a ruse to circumvent the rule prohibiting speaking against one's own motion, as I have already explained. This might well be just too much fancy-dancing.

No, you haven't explained it at all.  Nothing whatsoever supports your notion that the phrase is a ruse of any kind, or any sort of fancy-dancing.  It's only these things in that half of your mind.  (Smiley-face here)

 

[Rob Elsman]

This topic got disembodied from another topic, and it arose from the twists and turns of that topic. Being separated from the other topic has made this topic too difficult to use.

Just be assured that I am the first person to defend a mover's right to speak in favor of his motion and the last person to defend a member's attempt to circumvent the rules by any kind of shenanigans. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 8/21/2024 at 5:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Where does it say he can't speak against the motion after it has been amended in a way that completely changes the intent of the motion?

It doesn't explicitly say that anywhere that I know of, and I have long thought that it should be allowed. But I recall several discussion on this forum where it was being argued that you still can't speak against it even after it is amended adversely. In fact. I thought you were one of those who said that.

Are you now of the opinion that it is permissible for to speak against your own motion after it has been amended to change the intent? If so, that makes more sense to me than an absolute prohibition at any stage of consideration. Perhaps that can be clarified in teh 13th edition. And maybe through an Official Interpretation or a FAQ in the meantime.

[J. J.]

On 8/21/2024 at 6:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Where does it say he can't speak against the motion after it has been amended in a way that completely changes the intent of the motion?

You have, in the past, indicated that a member could not move postpone indefinitely in regard to a motion that he made, even if amended.  I believe you said that, in that circumstance, the member could signal his discontent by requesting permission to withdraw the motion. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 7:53 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

It doesn't explicitly say that anywhere that I know of, and I have long thought that it should be allowed. But I recall several discussion on this forum where it was being argued that you still can't speak against it even after it is amended adversely. In fact. I thought you were one of those who said that.

This may well be so, and if so, I would very much like to review any such discussions to refresh my recollection as to why I would have expressed such an opinion.  All that I am saying now is that I know of nothing in RONR that actually says so.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 8/21/2024 at 5:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Where does it say he can't speak against the motion after it has been amended in a way that completely changes the intent of the motion?

On 8/21/2024 at 7:19 PM, J. J. said:

You have, in the past, indicated that a member could not move postpone indefinitely in regard to a motion that he made, even if amended.  I believe you said that, in that circumstance, the member could signal his discontent by requesting permission to withdraw the motion. 

I think that may be the opinion I have in mind. If so, I probably am incorrect in my recollection of Mr. Honemann's previous opinion. But I do recall other discussions either on this forum or elsewhere where the prevailing opinion was that a member could not speak against his own motion even after it has been amended. I think the issue definitely could stand to be clarified.

[Richard Brown]

I am glad to see Mr. Honemann say that nothing in RONR prohibits a member from speaking against his own motion if the motion has been amended to do something, the member does not want. Like Mr. Merritt and JJ, it is my recollection from prior discussions in this forum that the consensus has been that a member cannot speak against his own motion, regardless of whether it has been amended in a way he does not like. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 8:19 PM, J. J. said:

You have, in the past, indicated that a member could not move postpone indefinitely in regard to a motion that he made, even if amended.  I believe you said that, in that circumstance, the member could signal his discontent by requesting permission to withdraw the motion. 

And here again, if this is so, I would very much like to review this discussions to refresh my recollection as to why I would have expressed such an opinion.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 8/21/2024 at 8:03 PM, Dan Honemann said:

And here again, if this is so, I would very much like to review this discussions to refresh my recollection as to why I would have expressed such an opinion.

Again, I may have misremembered the previous thread. After seeing J.J.'s response, I now think your opinion was on renounce to whether the maker of a motion could move to Postpone Indefinitely and speak in favor if that motion (presumably while the MM was still in its original form). That's a bit different from whether he can speak against it after it has been amended adversely. But either way, any clarification of the rule would be welcome.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/21/2024 at 7:34 PM, Rob Elsman said:

This topic got disembodied from another topic, and it arose from the twists and turns of that topic. Being separated from the other topic has made this topic too difficult to use.

Just be assured that I am the first person to defend a mover's right to speak in favor of his motion and the last person to defend a member's attempt to circumvent the rules by any kind of shenanigans. 

In that other thread, Mr. Brown suggested that "A member may make a motion that he actually hopes will be defeated because he wants the assembly to go on record as not supporting whatever it was the motion was purported  to accomplish."

I responded by asking "Why not just move that the assembly go on record as not supporting whatever it is?"

In this thread, you have now made the following comments regarding my suggested motion:

"I have not made up my mind whether this is too clever by half. The adoption of a motion puts the society on record. There is nothing added by the language in the motion. Were I in the chair, I might well be inclined to see through the veil and rule that the maker could not speak in favor of the motion, since speaking in favor is equivalent to speaking in opposition if the motion were more forthrightly worded."

 

"I have not said that the suggested language is not in order, but I am about half-a-mind that the mover cannot use this confusing language as a ruse to circumvent the rule prohibiting speaking against one's own motion, as I have already explained. This might well be just too much fancy-dancing."

 

Let me assure all who may be concerned that I am not in the habit of suggesting the use of motions for purposes of deception, confusion, or as a ruse to circumvent some rule of parliamentary procedure, and I certainly did not do so here.  I will answer my own question to Mr. Brown by saying that there is no reason at all why a member may not, or should not, move "that the assembly go on record as not supporting [whatever it is]"  

 

[J. J.]

I did post a specific question on this in the advanced section.