Recommendation 3: The Real Deal

[Brian Stoffregen]

That is what he said, but I think he was absolutely incorrect on this. The Assembly on Monday night APPROVE a rule which stated that in any recommendation from a task force report requiring constitution or bylaw amendments (which would be Rec. 3) OR AMENDMENTS OR SUBSTITUTE MOTIONS RELATED TO THEM that a 2/3 vote was to be required. That is the precise wording (what is in caps).

I was not at the Monday night marathon. However, what you report above could be interpreted as saying that if a substitute motion or an amended motion were to become the main motion, it would require a 2/3 vote for approval. As I heard Bishop Hanson explain his judgment, Roberts Rules governed the vote on substituting another motion or amending the main motion which only required a majority to substitute or amend. I'm not saying that he, nor my understanding is right, but that's what it sounded like to me. (I should have brought my Roberts Rules of Order, 10th edition.)

"Confusing is it," says Yoda.

[RorySten]

Hi Richard,

A big "Thank you" for your reporting and giving us an inside view of what went down on Friday.  I shared this thread with others at our adult Sunday School class today.  After reading this I felt compelled to read the LBW Prayer for the Church as an opening of today's class.  Thanx also to every other contributor as well for rounding out the coverage.

Grace and peace,
Rory,
State College PA - Grace Lutheran Church

[Norsk]

This is, of course, water well under the bridge by now.  However, I think that Brian's understanding of the rule amendment would have made the amendment superfluous.  The text of the original rule (before it was amended) would have always required a 2/3 vote on the main motion, no?

In any event, if the PB was in error, its unfortunate, but only because the rules should have been whatever the body agreed.  This possible misinterpretation of the rules did not have any practical effect.

[Brian Stoffregen]

This is, of course, water well under the bridge by now.  However, I think that Brian's understanding of the rule amendment would have made the amendment superfluous.  The text of the original rule (before it was amended) would have always required a 2/3 vote on the main motion, no?

I don't think my understanding would be superfluous. Someone could argue that if a substitute motion were substituted for the main motion and it did not require bylaw changes, that it would require only a majority for approval. Similarly, if an amendment were made and adopted to delete the bylaw changes from the recommendation, would it still require 2/3rds majority.

The rule adoption made it clear that however the main motion might be changed, it would require 2/3 majority. The issue is whether or not motions to amend or to substitute also required 2/3. The bishop's rule was that they did not -- we were operating under Robert's Rules, not the rules of the Assembly.

[Tony Stoutenburg]

Richard,

Thank you so much for your work. Having suffered through 2 CWA's I admire your effort to keep the rest of us informed.

Peace

Tony Stoutenburg
Grace Lutheran, Hayward, WI

[Richard Johnson]

The rule adoption made it clear that however the main motion might be changed, it would require 2/3 majority. The issue is whether or not motions to amend or to substitute also required 2/3. The bishop's rule was that they did not -- we were operating under Robert's Rules, not the rules of the Assembly.

Thing is, Brian, if your interpretation is correct, the amendment made on Monday night would have been pointless, since the unamended rule already required this.