Guest Ervin A Posted October 19, 2010 at 02:22 AM Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 at 02:22 AM I understand that after a motion has been made, seconded then stated by the chair, it is then the property of the membership and not the original maker of the motion. Any submitted "friendly amendments" would needed to be approved by the membership. What if the motion is NOT stated by the chair? After receiving a second, the chair asks, "any discussions?". Does the motion still belong to the original motion maker which can accept or reject friendly amendments? Where would this be covered in the RONR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted October 19, 2010 at 03:03 AM Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 at 03:03 AM I understand that after a motion has been made, seconded then stated by the chair, it is then the property of the membership and not the original maker of the motion.Any submitted "friendly amendments" would needed to be approved by the membership. What if the motion is NOT stated by the chair? After receiving a second, the chair asks, "any discussions?"Does the motion still belong to the original motion maker which can accept or reject friendly amendments? Where would this be covered in the RONR?Sloppy chair you've got there.Just because the chair neglects that step, that missing step by itself isn't an absolute indication that the assembly isn't in control.Once the chair opens the floor for debate, the "ownership" question is over, because opening up the floor for debate is the step which FOLLOWS the step of "stating the question."So, you will have gone too deep enough into the process (by one step) to allow the mover to modify his motion unilaterally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 19, 2010 at 03:15 AM Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 at 03:15 AM I concur with the findings of Mr. Goldsworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted October 19, 2010 at 08:08 AM Report Share Posted October 19, 2010 at 08:08 AM I understand that after a motion has been made, seconded then stated by the chair, it is then the property of the membership and not the original maker of the motion. Any submitted "friendly amendments" would needed to be approved by the membership. What if the motion is NOT stated by the chair? After receiving a second, the chair asks, "any discussions?". Does the motion still belong to the original motion maker which can accept or reject friendly amendments? Where would this be covered in the RONR?There is a procedure in RONR in which the motion maker may accept or reject suggested changes before the motion has been stated by the chair (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 38, line 25 - pg. 40, line 17). It seems clear that in this case, however, it was the chair's intent to place the motion before the assembly, but he is uneducated in proper parliamentary procedure and neglected to formally state the question. I would treat the motion as if it were the property of the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ervin A Posted November 2, 2010 at 06:44 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 at 06:44 PM I understand that after a motion has been made, seconded then stated by the chair, it is then the property of the membership and not the original maker of the motion. Any submitted "friendly amendments" would needed to be approved by the membership. What if the motion is NOT stated by the chair? After receiving a second, the chair asks, "any discussions?". Does the motion still belong to the original motion maker which can accept or reject friendly amendments? Where would this be covered in the RONR?Thanks for the responses. The Chairman tells me he is within his rights to NOT state the motion in order to allow the maker of the motion to respond to "friendly amendments". He does this all of the time. I do not find anything I have read so far affirming or denying him of this action. Is there anything in RONR? It appears in all examples shown in the book that stating the question is always done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted November 2, 2010 at 08:12 PM Report Share Posted November 2, 2010 at 08:12 PM Thanks for the responses. The Chairman tells me he is within his rights to NOT state the motion ....And he can back this up from a citation from RONR? Um.... might be worth asking for page and line on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted November 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 at 12:23 AM Thanks for the responses. The Chairman tells me he is within his rights to NOT state the motion in order to allow the maker of the motion to respond to "friendly amendments". He does this all of the time. I do not find anything I have read so far affirming or denying him of this action. Is there anything in RONR? It appears in all examples shown in the book that stating the question is always done.The chairman is showing his ignorance of RONR. Once he asks for discussion, he has placed the question before the assembly, and it is no longer the property of the mover.The fact that he has done a bumbling and inept job of it does not change the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted November 3, 2010 at 06:01 AM Report Share Posted November 3, 2010 at 06:01 AM Guest Ervin A,Your president thinks he has found a loophole. And, I think that clearly Mr Goldsworthy, Mr Wynn, Mr Martin, and Mr Novosielski don't go far enough in making it clear that no, he hasn't. You asked for citations, and they impetuously gave you facts without citations, which can look like they are opinions (clearly, again, right - but not enough). He is NOT within his rights to violate the rule on the middle of p. 31, and the top of p. 36, which requires the chair to give the motion from the mover to the assembly.What needs to happen when the president again neglects to state the motion is that a member raises a Point of Order, pointing out the violation of procedure that protects the members. If the chair rules against the point of order, appeal his ruling to the membership.Maybe he thinks he can smugly game the system. In which case look at FAQ #20. Or maybe he innocently thinks he is helping move matters along, in which case point out that Goldsworthy, Wynn, Martin, and Novosielski outweigh him. And not only in knowledge and savvy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.