less than a majority on vote

[Chris Harrison]

Which is one of the longest sections in The Book. Better put a pot on.

...And I though that the passages for Amend and Reconsider were long. Jeez!

[hmtcastle]

In a case such as this, it would be best for the maker of the main motion to request leave to modify it.

Thanks for the fine-tuning. I'm assuming this is because, by doing so, the maker is, in essence, speaking against the motion he made?

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks for the fine-tuning. I'm assuming this is because, by doing so, the maker is, in essence, speaking against the motion he made?

I'm not certain. I've only gotten up to page 2157.

[David A Foulkes]

Thanks for the fine-tuning. I'm assuming this is because, by doing so, the maker is, in essence, speaking against the motion he made?

Interesting question, for me anyway. Would it then be that, for any member who obtains the floor during debate to make a motion to amend (or some other in-order motion) is in fact using up some of his debate time to do so? I had this idea in my head (can't pin down where it came from) that this would not be the case, but I think I can see (as I write this) how that might be.

[hmtcastle]

Would it then be that, for any member who obtains the floor during debate to make a motion to amend (or some other in-order motion) is in fact using up some of his debate time to do so?

I'm inclined to think that making a motion, even a motion to amend, is not considered to be "debate". I was simply trying to come up with the rationale for having to "request leave" so that I could place it within the larger scheme of things.

[Josh Martin]

It may not be advisable, sure, but is there anything that prevents the maker of a main motion from making a motion to amend his own motion? (perhaps a footnote I missed? )

No, but a member shouldn't make a motion he is opposed to. Presumably, the poster has an opinion on whether or not sex offenders should be included in the program. If, as Mr. Mountcastle suggests, he changes his mind during the debate, that's another story.

If the member believes the rest of the assembly is uneducated in proper parliamentary procedures, I think the best course of action would be to confer with the chair prior to the meeting, so that the chair is prepared to process the motion appropriately and answer any questions. I think if the member makes a motion and then immediately contradicts himself with the following motion, this will simply confuse the assembly.

[hmtcastle]

I think if the member makes a motion and then immediately contradicts himself with the following motion, this will simply confuse the assembly.

I agree. And I regret that my abbreviated description of the process may have led some to think the OP would be making both motions without any intervening debate.

[Guest God's Child]

Good evening, everyone!

I thought you might like to know how this turned out.

I made a few phone calls and the motion that came out of committee was to sign the agreement without registered sex offenders. There was intense but appropriate debate about why we were only considering non-RSOs. I had explained the amendment process to someone else and they amended the motion to read "with" instead of "without". After more debate, a written ballot was taken and the amendment failed 1/3 to 2/3. We then voted on the main motion which was to sign the agreement without registered sex offenders. Another written ballot was taken and the motion failed 1/3 to 2/3.

I would have never known how to do all of this if the people on this forum had not come to my rescue. I only had one multi-faceted goal going into the meeting. I wanted civil discourse, debate that allowed everyone's opinion to be heard, a vote without confusion, a result with a clear majority, and the ability for everyone to leave the meeting feeling like what had occurred had been done correctly.

In other words, I wanted to allow Robert's Rules of Order to work properly. And that happened. Well, except for the part about a clear majority! But those in the minority feel like they were treated with respect and had their say. They don't like the result but they have no problem with the process!

Thanks again to all that helped.

[Tim Wynn]

After more debate, a written ballot was taken and the amendment failed 1/3 to 2/3. We then voted on the main motion which was to sign the agreement without registered sex offenders. Another written ballot was taken and the motion failed 1/3 to 2/3.

Well, except for the part about a clear majority!

It looks to me like you got a clear majority.

[Guest God's Child]

Oops! That's not what I meant.

We definitely got a clear majority. And it was a very clear majority.

However, what I meant was that Robert's Rules of Order had nothing to do with the clear majority!

[Weldon Merritt]

However, what I meant was that Robert's Rules of Order had nothing to do with the clear majority!

I am not so sure. If you hadm't followed the propoer rules, you might have had a muddled mess instead of a clear majority.