Amendment(s)

[Guest Jerry C]

Can amendments to a motion completely do away with the original motion?

For instance, if a motion is made to move 90% monies from one account to another,

can amendments be made that end up changing the motion to moving all the money,

and to accounts other than originally intended? In other words can amendments

"blow up" the original motion, or must some aspect of the original motion be intact?

Confusing, am I not?

[hmtcastle]

Can amendments to a motion completely do away with the original motion?

For instance, if a motion is made to move 90% monies from one account to another, can amendments be made that end up changing the motion to moving all the money, and to accounts other than originally intended? In other words can amendments "blow up" the original motion, or must some aspect of the original motion be intact?

It depends. If previous notice is required (such as when amending bylaws), any amendments (changes) to the proposed amendment must fall "within the scope of the notice".

If no notice is required, any amendments must still be "germane" to the motion. But that provides fairly wide latitude. RONR gives an example (p. 131) where a motion to "commend" is changed into a motion to "censure", the exact opposite of the original intent but still "germane" to the question.

[Guest Jerry C]

It depends. If previous notice is required (such as when amending bylaws), any amendments (changes) to the proposed amendment must fall "within the scope of the notice".

If no notice is required, any amendments must still be "germane" to the motion. But that provides fairly wide latitude. RONR gives an example (p. 131) where a motion to "commend" is changed into a motion to "censure", the exact opposite of the original intent but still "germane" to the question.

Thank you. So the Chair or Moderator decides what is "germane." In my example since the main motion was to move monies, then any amendments to move monies would be "germane" even if the "final" motion looked nothing like the original. (I suppose?)

[hmtcastle]

So the Chair or Moderator decides what is "germane." In my example since the main motion was to move monies, then any amendments to move monies would be "germane" even if the "final" motion looked nothing like the original.

The chair could rule an amendment out of order if he thinks it's not germane but his ruling can be appealed. So, in the end, it's the assembly that determines what's acceptable.

If you use the "commend/censure" example from the book, your argument should be persuasive. RONR notes that there are "borderline" cases and, when in doubt, the chair should admit the amendment or refer the decision to the assembly (p. 131).

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Can amendments to a motion completely do away with the original motion?

For instance, if a motion is made to move 90% monies from one account to another, can amendments be made that end up changing the motion to moving all the money, and to accounts other than originally intended?

In other words can amendments "blow up" the original motion?

Yes. Amendments can indeed be hostile, and flip the original intent of the original mover.

Confusing, am I not?

As Yoda says.

"In the dark, Jerry C is."

"At the end of the sentence, the verb is."

(Yoda must be German.)

[Trina]

Yes. Amendments can indeed be hostile, and flip the original intent of the original mover.

As Yoda says.

"In the dark, Jerry C is."

"At the end of the sentence, the verb is."

(Yoda must be German.)

Mistaken Mr. Goldsworthy is... about German syntax .

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Mistaken Mr. Goldsworthy is... about German syntax .

Ah, well!

You cannot trust Mark Twain.

The Germans have another kind of parenthesis, which they make by splitting a verb in two and putting half of it at the beginning of an exciting chapter and the other half at the end of it. Can any one conceive of anything more confusing than that? These things are called "separable verbs." The German grammar is blistered all over with separable verbs; and the wider the two portions of one of them are spread apart, the better the author of the crime is pleased with his performance. A favorite one is reiste ab — which means departed.

Here is an example which I culled from a novel and reduced to English:

"The trunks being now ready, he DE-

after kissing his mother and sisters, and once more pressing to his bosom his adored Gretchen, who, dressed in simple white muslin, with a single tuberose in the ample folds of her rich brown hair, had tottered feebly down the stairs, still pale from the terror and excitement of the past evening, but longing to lay her poor aching head yet once again upon the breast of him whom she loved more dearly than life itself,

-PARTED."

— Mark Twain, "A Tramp Abroad"

[Trina]

Ah, well!

You cannot trust Mark Twain.

The Mark Twain example sounds OK ('abreisen' can turn into 'reiste blah blah blah blah blah blah ab'), and I can think of other similar cases. Interesting to see the term 'separable verb' -- that makes sense. However, the earlier Yoda-speak sentences would, nevertheless, be incorrect in German .

For example, 'John is in the garden' could be correctly expressed by the word order:

'In the garden is John'

but not by:

'In the garden John is'

On the other hand, 'John would like to be in the garden' comes out as:

'John would like in the garden to be'

Go figure. As is often the case, the devil is in the details.

Up in the middle of the night to look at a frozen turkey am I.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[Tim Wynn]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Happy Thanksgiving, Trina.

[David A Foulkes]

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

Rubber I am

Glue you are