Other than the main motion, the motion to amend may be the most frequently used motion in meetings. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised has more than 80 motions and variations, depending on how you count them. (I don’t recommend going looking for all of them.) But if you can master the motion to amend, you’ll probably be able to handle 75% of the parliamentary problems that come up in meetings.
For some reason, amendments can trip up even the most experienced presiding officers. So let’s take a look at the most likely danger points when handling the motion to amend under Robert’s Rules of Order (although these same principles also apply under other parliamentary authorities, such as the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure).
Why Do We Need Amendments?
First, understand that you don’t actually need amendments to conduct business. You could simply keep making different main motions until one passes.
For example, imagine an association discussing repairs to its parking lot.
A member moves, “That we spend up to $10,000 to pave the parking lot.”
After discussion, the motion fails.
Another member moves, “That we spend up to $7,500 to pave the parking lot.”
More discussion. That motion fails, too.
Finally, someone moves, “That we spend up to $5,000 to pave the parking lot.”
After still more discussion, the motion passes!
That approach COULD work, although parliamentary rules can limit when a defeated proposal may be brought back for consideration. But it’s not efficient. Each new motion starts the process over, and members can speak on each new proposal. Depending on the size of the group, this could take a long time.
That’s where the motion to amend comes in.
Instead of making one main motion after another, members can propose changes to the original motion while it is still being considered. The group can then decide whether to make those changes BEFORE a final vote on the main motion.
In other words, amendments let a group consider different versions of a proposal without starting over each time.
That sounds simple enough. So why do amendments cause so much confusion?
In my experience, there are two places where even experienced presiding officers tend to get into trouble.
First, Focus on the Amendment Like a Laser Beam
Suppose the pending main motion is to spend $10,000 paving the parking lot.
A member moves to amend the motion by striking “$10,000” and inserting “$7,500.”
At that moment, the discussion changes. The group is NOT still discussing the entire parking lot proposal. It is debating whether to change the amount from $10,000 to $7,500.
That distinction is important.
Members can explain why $7,500 is a better amount, why $10,000 is necessary, or why reducing the budget might affect the quality of the project. Those arguments relate directly to the proposed amendment.
But this isn’t the time for a lengthy discussion about whether the parking lot needs paving, whether the association should be spending money on other projects, or whether the parking lot contractor does good work.
Those issues may be appropriate when discussing the main motion. But during discussion on the amendment, debate should focus on the proposed change.
A good presiding officer must keep bringing the discussion back to the amendment. If someone wanders too far from the subject, the chair might simply say, “Right now, we’re only discussing whether to change $10,000 to $7,500. Members will have the chance to discuss the proposal as a whole after voting on the amendment.”
It also helps for the chair to repeat the exact amendment before taking the vote. Members should always know precisely what they are voting on.
As Robert’s Rules warns, failing to make clear what question is immediately pending is one of the greatest causes of confusion in meetings.
Second, Don’t Forget the Main Motion!
This may be the most common mistake of all.
After discussing the proposed amendment, there is a vote just on the amendment.
“Those in favor of changing the amount from $10,000 to $7,500, say ‘Aye.’ Those opposed, say ‘No.'”
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted.
At this point, chairs sometimes announce that the association has approved spending $7,500 to pave the parking lot.
Whoa, not so fast!
The members have only approved the amendment to change the wording of the original motion. They have not yet agreed to pave the parking lot or spend the money.
Think of an amendment as editing a proposal. You are changing the words of the motion, not necessarily approving what the motion will do if adopted.
Once the amendment is adopted, the chair should announce something like this:
“The amendment is adopted. The motion is now to spend $7,500 to pave the parking lot. Is there further discussion?”
Members can then continue discussing the main motion as amended. Other amendments may even be proposed.
Eventually, the group votes on the main motion itself as amended.
The same principle applies if the amendment fails. The original $10,000 motion remains pending, unchanged, and discussion returns to that motion.
This is especially confusing when a large amendment is adopted. Sometimes the amendment changes most or all of the original proposal and everyone feels like the group has made its decision. We’re done!
But we’re not.
While it may seem like we’re voting on the same proposal twice, we’re really answering two different questions. The first vote decides whether we want to change the proposal. The second vote decides whether we want to adopt the entire proposal, as amended.
And there’s nothing inconsistent about voting differently on those two questions.
For example, suppose the main motion is to spend $50,000 to renovate the clubhouse. Someone moves to amend the motion by adding “and parking lot” so that the renovations include both areas.
I may think that’s a good amendment. If we’re going to spend money on renovations, we might as well address the parking lot, too. So I vote FOR the amendment.
But when we return to the main motion, I may still think the entire project costs too much. So I vote AGAINST the main motion as amended.
There’s nothing contradictory about that. I voted for what I thought was a better proposal, but I still didn’t want to spend the money.
The vote on the amendment decides what we’re considering. The vote on the main motion decides what we’re actually going to do.
Remember: Adopting an amendment does not adopt the main motion. Defeating an amendment does not defeat the main motion.
That one rule will prevent an amazing amount of confusion.
The Bottom Line
Amendments are intended to make meetings easier, not harder. They allow members to improve proposals, consider alternatives, and reach decisions without repeatedly starting over.
For presiding officers, the two most important lessons are surprisingly simple. First, when an amendment is pending, focus just on that amendment. Make certain the discussion and vote concern the specific change being proposed. Second, don’t forget the main motion. Whether an amendment passes or fails, the main motion remains pending and must eventually be dealt with.
Of course, there’s more to amendments. What are the different ways to amend a motion? Can you amend an amendment? What about those so-called “friendly amendments“? We’ll save those questions for future articles.
For now, if you can remember these two principles, you’ll be well ahead of most people trying to navigate Robert’s Rules.
Want to know more about amendments? My Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition discusses the motion to amend in detail, including common questions and problems (pages 31–35). For a shorter, more practical introduction to motions and meeting procedure, see Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track: The Brief and Easy Guide to Parliamentary Procedure for the Modern Meeting. Both books are available on Amazon.
Jim Slaughter is an attorney, Certified Professional Parliamentarian-Teacher, and Professional Registered Parliamentarian. He has served as parliamentarian for thousands of meetings, from small boards to national conventions. For more information about his books and free parliamentary resources, visit www.jimslaughter.com.