Amending a resolution

[Guest Jonathan Z]

I feel I know the answer to this but just wanted to be sure. I know resolutions can be amended. However, they must essentially retain the spirit of the original purpose, otherwise the amendment is not germane and it is out of order. This rule exists to keep people from getting resolutions through the committee and then changing the subject at conventions.

I have a resolution pending in a couple weeks. It has 2 parts, one concerning a name change of the organization, one concerning whether we are an international or national organization. The name change is out of order, much to my dismay, but the two were together in one resolution. If I move to amend and have the part about the name change stricken, it would still be considered germane wouldn't it?

The only reason I ask is that RONR only really deals with germaneness when ADDING additional things to the resolution, not striking.

Thank you for any help in advance

[Rob Elsman]

If the chair rules that the resolution is out of order and inadmissible, it will not be before the convention to amend.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I know resolutions can be amended. However, they must essentially retain the spirit of the original purpose, otherwise the amendment is not germane and it is out of order.

Hold your horses!

You are very wrong.

Amendments CAN be hostile.

The person moving the amendment is under NO OBLIGATION to support the spirit or intent of the original maker of the motion.

See RONR's example (page 131) where a motion "To commend" is amended "To censure".

This rule exists to keep people from getting resolutions through the committee and then changing the subject at conventions.

Again, there is no such rule.

[alanh49]

I feel I know the answer to this but just wanted to be sure. I know resolutions can be amended. However, they must essentially retain the spirit of the original purpose, otherwise the amendment is not germane and it is out of order. This rule exists to keep people from getting resolutions through the committee and then changing the subject at conventions.

I have a resolution pending in a couple weeks. It has 2 parts, one concerning a name change of the organization, one concerning whether we are an international or national organization. The name change is out of order, much to my dismay, but the two were together in one resolution. If I move to amend and have the part about the name change stricken, it would still be considered germane wouldn't it?

The only reason I ask is that RONR only really deals with germaneness when ADDING additional things to the resolution, not striking.

Thank you for any help in advance

If one part of the resolution is out of order and the other part isn't just move to adopt the part that isn't

[Guest Jonathan Z]

Kim--I did not say they could NOT be hostile. However, there is a test for GERMANENESS. Meaning that it must be close the original purpose of the original resolution. RONR pg 130, line 1. What you are talking about is in the examples of germaneness. I was asking, how much of the resolution can I strike before it is no longer germane. It seems as if germaneness is more aimed at adding additional things into the resolution to be heard. To prevent a sort of piggy backing.

So again, to put it more simply, if I were to cut out the name change part, and just leave the National/International part, does anyone see anything problematic with that regarding whether or not it is germane when compared to teh original resolution?

[hmtcastle]

Meaning that it must be close the original purpose of the original resolution. RONR pg 130, line 1.

Well, RONR says nothing about "original purpose"

But just make the motion without the name-change part.

[Mr. J!]

Changing the name of the organization almost certainly requires a bylaw amendment. A resolution on whether it is an international or national organization may do so--check your bylaws carefully.

In any case, you can offer one without the other, as advised above.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I was asking, how much of the resolution can I strike before it is no longer germane?

You are free to strike out anything and everything EXCEPT you must leave just enough words to still have an adoptable motion.

You cannot strike out 100% of the text. - But you can come as close as English syntax allows for a rational resolution to remain.

It seems as if germaneness is more aimed at adding additional things into the resolution to be heard. To prevent a sort of piggy backing.

I agree. Adding new ideas risks being non-gemane.

But eliminating language, as you plan to do, will never be non-germane.

So strike away!

If I were to cut out the name change part, and just leave the National/International part, does anyone see anything problematic with that regarding whether or not it is germane when compared to the original resolution?

No problem. - As long as whatever is left over still presents a rational, adoptable motion.

See RONR's example about compound resolutions ("Division of a Question"), which are splittable, due to each part representing an independent adoptable motion after the split.

[Trina]

If the chair rules that the resolution is out of order and inadmissible, it will not be before the convention to amend.

You are free to strike out anything and everything EXCEPT you must leave just enough words to still have an adoptable motion.

....

See RONR's example about compound resolutions ("Division of a Question"), which are splittable, due to each part representing an independent adoptable motion after the split.

So, if Mr. Elsman's hypothetical chair rules the entire resolution out of order, someone from the assembly should appeal from the ruling of the chair... in order to get the flawed resolution before the assembly... in order to amend out the inadmissable part?

Looking back at this thread:

I wonder if Mr. Honemann's final comment in that thread has some relevance here also -- that perhaps the chair could, and should, rule only the inadmissable portion of the resolution to be out of order (rather than trying to prevent its consideration entirely)?

I'm assuming that Jonathan Z's concern about amending the resolution (rather than simply making a new motion leaving out the troublesome portion, as some posters have suggested) might be due to some notice requirement in the organization... perhaps all resolutions have to be submitted ahead of time.

[Guest Jonathan Z]

yes they must be submitted ahead of time, but as previously stated this ENTIRE resolution was submitted in a timely fashion. But, the committee commented on it saying that the name change is not within the authority of the Board to do so as it was agreed upon in a merger b/t 2 other organizations and was the subject of a legal agreement between them. Therefore, they said it would be out of order for them to change the name. Either way, that point is moot.

Bottom line is, it IS submitted in a timely fashion and is in order, but b/c of the material, one side is going to be pushing for it to be thrown out. Just hedging my bets. Thanks all for the comments!!

[Josh Martin]

The only reason I ask is that RONR only really deals with germaneness when ADDING additional things to the resolution, not striking.

That's because it's pretty much impossible for an amendment to strike out to not be germane. Since whatever language is being stricken is a part of the resolution, it is clearly germane to the resolution.

So, if Mr. Elsman's hypothetical chair rules the entire resolution out of order, someone from the assembly should appeal from the ruling of the chair... in order to get the flawed resolution before the assembly... in order to amend out the inadmissable part?

Looking back at this thread:

http://robertsrules....-null-and-void/

I wonder if Mr. Honemann's final comment in that thread has some relevance here also -- that perhaps the chair could, and should, rule only the inadmissable portion of the resolution to be out of order (rather than trying to prevent its consideration entirely)?

I'm assuming that Jonathan Z's concern about amending the resolution (rather than simply making a new motion leaving out the troublesome portion, as some posters have suggested) might be due to some notice requirement in the organization... perhaps all resolutions have to be submitted ahead of time.

As I understand the discussion from that thread, if independent motions are included together in one resolution (which appears to be the case here), the chair could rule out of order a motion which was not in order and leave the rest of the resolution intact.

[Rob Elsman]

So, if Mr. Elsman's hypothetical chair rules the entire resolution out of order, someone from the assembly should appeal from the ruling of the chair... in order to get the flawed resolution before the assembly... in order to amend out the inadmissable part?

Looking back at this thread:

http://robertsrules....-null-and-void/

I wonder if Mr. Honemann's final comment in that thread has some relevance here also -- that perhaps the chair could, and should, rule only the inadmissable portion of the resolution to be out of order (rather than trying to prevent its consideration entirely)?

I'm assuming that Jonathan Z's concern about amending the resolution (rather than simply making a new motion leaving out the troublesome portion, as some posters have suggested) might be due to some notice requirement in the organization... perhaps all resolutions have to be submitted ahead of time.

No. Mr. Honemann was addressing the instance when multiple motions or resolutions are offered by one main motion. In this post, there is, as we are told, only one resolution.