Workaround for Prohibition on Speaking against one's on Motion

[Rob Elsman]

So, if Mr. Honemann's suggestion is correct, the direct rejection of the motion will mean that the society has gone on record as deciding not to go on record to not support something?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, I have found this thread where I said:

"As previously indicated, it is my opinion that this rule remains applicable no matter whether, or to what extent, the motion may have been amended. The maker of the motion has ample opportunity to express his opposition to any proposed amendment of it, and can ask (and only he can ask) permission to withdraw it when and if it no longer reflects his wishes."

I don't know where I "previously indicated" this, and I give no reason for saying it other than to indicate that it may be difficult to determine at what point an amendment becomes sufficiently adverse to the maker's motion to permit him to speak against it as amended.  My colleague Mr. Gerber argues in favor of permitting the maker to speak in opposition to the amended motion, and I cannot now remember why I disagreed.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/22/2024 at 8:49 AM, Rob Elsman said:

So, if Mr. Honemann's suggestion is correct, the direct rejection of the motion will mean that the society has gone on record as deciding not to go on record to not support something?

Yes, it will mean that the assembly has decided that it will not go on record as not supporting whatever it is.

[Rob Elsman]

On 8/22/2024 at 8:33 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, it will mean that the assembly has decided that it will not go on record as not supporting whatever it is.

I think the double negative is confounding me, and I am going to have to chew on it to see if I can figure out what it means.

[J. J.]

On 8/22/2024 at 9:27 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I don't know where I "previously indicated" this, and I give no reason for saying it other than to indicate that it may be difficult to determine at what point an amendment becomes sufficiently adverse to the maker's motion to permit him to speak against it as amended.

Why wouldn't this be left to the discretion of the assembly to determine if the debate is out of order?   I have posted an example elsewhere where I think the situation would be clear, but I can also see cases where the answer could be reasonable disputed. 

[Rob Elsman]

Ah! Thank you, Mr. Honemann. Once you reposted your earlier remarks, I remembered them. That was where I originally got my opinion. I was going crazy trying to figure out why I thought what I thought, especially since, with Mr. Gerber, this seems, perhaps, a little counterintuitive. It certainly would not have been the sort of opinion I could have formed on my own. Much appreciated!

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/22/2024 at 8:36 AM, Dan Honemann said:

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]"  

Not from a procedural point of view, no. But there may be a  strategic reason to prefer Mr. Brown's way. Human nature being what it is, it is more likely that a motion supporting [whatever] will be defeated than a motion "to go on record as not supporting [whatever]" will be adopted. 

Defeat of the supporting motion is an act of omission, while adoption of the "go on record" motion is an act of commission, and humans appear more comfortable with the former, even when both lead to the same outcome.

(Note: I do recognize that defeating a motion to support is not the same as adopting a motion to go on the record as not supporting. But there is enough commonality for most to consider them as if the same outcome.)

Edited August 22, 2024 at 07:04 PM by Atul Kapur
Added parenthetical note

[Richard Brown]

On 8/22/2024 at 10:05 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Not from a procedural point of view, no. But there may be a  strategic reason to prefer Mr. Brown's way. Human nature being what it is, it is more likely that a motion supporting [whatever] will be defeated than a motion "to go on record as not supporting [whatever]" will be adopted. 

Defeat of the supporting motion is an act of omission, while adoption of the "go on record" motion is an act of commission, and humans appear more comfortable with the former, even when both lead to the same outcome.

Thank you, Dr. Kapur.  What you stated is essentially my reason for my earlier comment that it is in order for a member to make a motion to do something which he actually opposes doing.

This is the hypothetical I was thinking of at the time I made that comment:  Members of an organization have recently been discussing among themselves, without any motion, whether the organization should have a Christmas party or enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade. Member Smith does not want to have a Christmas party or to enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade, but knows that it would be improper to make a motion not to have the Christmas party or not to enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade because such a motion would be out of order because it would amount to just maintaining the status quo.  The group will not be having a Christmas party or entering the parade unless it adopts a motion to do so.

However, knowing the makeup of the assembly at that meeting (several members who like to party have skipped this particular meeting in order to attend a Halloween party), he thinks that a motion at this particular meeting to have a Christmas party or to march in the St. Patrick’s parade would probably be defeated.  So, he makes a motion to have a Christmas party or to enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade, hoping it will be defeated. He chooses not to speak in favor of his motion. The motion is defeated, perhaps in part because member Smith did not speak in favor of it.

Member Smith and other members who voted against the motion can now, whenever other members start saying that they think the group should have a Christmas party or enter the parade, can say “that motion came up at the last meeting (or at a previous meeting) and it was decided that we will not have a Christmas party (or that we will not enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade)”. Their hope is that once the other members know that a motion to have the party or enter the parade has already been defeated will dissuade other members from trying to make a new motion to have a Christmas party or enter the parade. It is purely for strategic purposes. 

Sure, the member could PERHAPS have made a motion “that the club go on record as opposing having Christmas parties or opposing marching in Patrick’s Day parades“ but he did not want to make the motion that way, or perhaps did not even think of doing it that way. The fact that there might have been an alternative motion to the one he chose to make is beside the point. The motion he did make is not prohibited, and he had the right to make it.  He just could not speak against it without having the rules suspended.

Edited August 22, 2024 at 03:57 PM by Richard Brown
Changed the example slightly to say that several members who like to party had skipped this particular meeting in order to attend a Halloween party.

[Dan Honemann]

On 8/22/2024 at 11:49 AM, Richard Brown said:

This is the hypothetical I was thinking of at the time I made that comment:  Members of an organization have recently been discussing among themselves, without any motion, whether the organization should have a Christmas party or enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade. Member Smith does not want to have a Christmas party or to enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade, but knows that it would be improper to make a motion not to have the Christmas party or not to enter the St. Patrick’s Day parade because such a motion would be out of order because it would amount to just maintaining the status quo.

Well, RONR does not say that such a motion is out of order, and the chair should not rule such a motion out of order. 

RONR does say that it would be preferable to move "that no Christmas party be held this year", and I'm wondering why Member Smith doesn't want to make such a motion.  If adopted, any subsequent attempt to reverse this decision will require more than just a majority vote. Well, actually, RONR doesn't say this, but I am.