Amend, Incidentally Speaking

Parliamentary law is a multi-dimensional subject, yet we often view it in a two-dimensional format.  This is best symbolized by imagining the open pages of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) in front of us.  The page is essentially a two-dimensional presentation, yet the book is many pages.  It has considerable depth.  It is hard to read into parliamentary law without taking a multi-dimensional viewpoint.

When I first began learning parliamentary law, I would often find myself studying a particular topic with many fingers inserted between the pages of RONR.  The fingers served as temporary bookmarks.  I would follow the various references within the text to other text until I basically ran out of fingers.  At that point, I could only pull my hands free and start over again.  While this can be somewhat frustrating to the novice, it is intellectually gratifying to those of us who enjoy the depth and complexity of Order.

Taking an oblique angle to RONR can be very enlightening.  Imagine picking up RONR and instead of looking at the open flat pages, visualize looking at the book from the side or from the back.  Literally speaking, such an activity will produce brief and frivolous results, but figuratively, it is a great way to attack the subject with cerebral vigor.

A great example of an oblique look taken on a grand scale is Nancy Sylvester's book The Guerrilla Guide to Robert's Rules.  This book is a clever decoy for learning the basics of parliamentary law.  The information is presented for that person who wants to strategically cut to the chase and make something happen.  What the reader discovers along the way, however, is the basic principles of parliamentary law.  It teaches the academics from an oblique angle.

So let's take a stab at an oblique look.  Consider the motion to Amend.  Every student of parliamentary law can tell you right off the bat that Amend is a Subsidiary motion.  An advanced student, however, will recognize that Amend can either be a Subsidiary motion or an Incidental Main motion.  An example of the latter is the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  In this case, Amend takes on the characteristics of a Main motion rather than a Subsidiary motion.

All this can be gleaned from a two-dimensional viewpoint.  There are explicit chapters in RONR on the Subsidiary motion to Amend and the Incidental Main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  Now, for the oblique look.

We know that Amend can also be applied to the motions to Amend, Commit, Postpone to a Certain Time, Limit Debate, Recess, Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, Close Nominations/Polls, Reopen Nominations/Polls, Consideration by Paragraph/Seriatim, and Division of a Question.  When applied to these motions, Amend does not fit into an order of precedence.  However, one of the distinguishing characteristics of a Subsidiary motion is that it fits into an order of precedence.  In the cases above, Amend incidentally relates to these motions when pending.  Thus, Amend becomes an Incidental motion.

RONR covers this cleanly without complicating the issue (as I have certainly done).  On pages 62-63, it refers to Cases Where One Subsidiary Motion Can Be Applied to Another.  The point here is to keep it simple: Amend is classified as a Subsidiary motion, period.  For those of us who wish to understand it with greater depth, it is insightful to recognize that Amend can take on certain incidental characteristics.

What have we learned?  When teaching the novice, Amend is a Subsidiary motion.  When teaching advanced workshops, as when preparing the student for the NAP Registration Exam, Amend can also be an Incidental Main motion.  But when we take a muti-dimensional look, Amend can be one of three classes:

1. Incidental Main motion -- when applied to something previously adopted
2. Subidiary motion -- when applied to a Main motion
3. Incidental motion -- in all other cases that apply to:
• an amendable Subsidiary motion (Amend, Commit, Postpone to a Certain Time, Limit Debate)
• an amendable Privileged motion (Recess, Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn)
• an amendable Incidental motion (Close Nominations/Polls, Reopen Nominations/Polls, Consideration by Paragraph/Seriatim, Division of a Question)

Unlike Harry Potter, we have no school for parliamentary wizards beyond the credentialing levels.  For the general dissemination of parliamentary law, there is no real value in adding another classification to the motion to Amend.  Not all magic has benefit, and this oblique tidbit gives the layperson little benefit beyond a fireworks display.  With wizardry, it is often best to keep such things within the sphere of the wizards.

Honor Among Scholars

It may be of dubious value to gather 300 lawyers in a room, and equally so to gather 300 parliamentarians in a room. Last week, I discovered that there is merit in gathering 300 scholars in a room. I had the great pleasure to serve as parliamentarian for the triennial council of Phi Beta Kappa here in Austin.

I have often believed that if one spends time with people of character, after awhile, a little of that character might just rub off. Just the same, if one spends time with intelligent people, some of it might rub off. Whether I am any smarter for it, I certainly feel that way after working with numerous professors, Phds, and generally bright people. Oh, and a little character rubbed off too. I am always in need of such personal augmentation.

So what did I learn?  Well, at least three things.  First, I learned that the word snarky is a useful one for parliamentarians.  Second, I learned that logical paradoxes by Lewis Caroll are worth contemplating on a rainy afternoon (see What the Tortoise Said to Achilles).  Third, I learned that playing the saxophone will make you a better writer.

In between the meetings, many of the delegates conversed with me about parliamentary procedure. In most cases, it turned out the delegate had served as a faculty senate parliamentarian. I have no idea how many of the 300 delegates had so served, but I would not be surprised if the number was large. Thus, I had many kindred spirits throughout the assembly. This is not necessarily a good thing, since parliamentary procedure can be used in a manipulative and dilatory way. I saw nothing of the sort. In general, the knowledge of procedure was good and any dilatory actions were accidental.

I was very impressed with the decorum that I witnessed. The level of politeness and orderliness was unsurpassed of any organization I have served or observed. I think there is a good reason for this. Liberal Arts scholars are masters of language. More than any other group, they understand the meaning and power of words. They know how dangerous words can be, and so they were very judicious and careful in their choice of words.

Decorum reduces confusion and eliminates rancorous emotions. Decorum enhances order. Many individuals fail to recognize this. They risk the slippery slope of accusation and personal attack, which always incites disorder and deters organizational progress. There are very good reasons why proper form is best for making motions. Clarity and integrity result. Decorum in debate is even more important in this regard. In form and in debate, the choice of words matters.

Phi Beta Kappa is an important American organization and I was able to vicariously become a part of it for three days. In a small way, I was able to help them with their business and enable them to continue the fine work that this honor society has done for 233 years. That is really what being a parliamentarian is all about.