Motion fails to get second, is discussed anyway

[Guest Meg]

Board had a motion before it. Motion failed to get a second. Chair said motion failed for lack of second. After that, board proceeded to discuss the matter, anyway, instead of moving on to the next order of business. Board member made the motion again. This time it was seconded and voted upon. Now the board member who made the initial motion is upset and believes the vote is invalid and it should be moved to the next month's meeting agenda. Is the upset member correct? Could the motion have been brought back during the same meeting? Did the subsequent discussion nullify the failure to have a second on the initial motion? Thanks for any and all responses.

[J. J.]

The upset member is not correct.  The a second means, effectively that more than one member wants to discuss the motion(p. 250, ll. 17-25). 

Also note that seconds are not required in small boards (p. 488, l. 1).

[Setemu]

15 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The upset member is not correct.  The a second means, effectively that more than one member wants to discuss the motion(p. 250, ll. 17-25). 

 

The page cited (p. 250, ll. 17-25) refers to an example on the timelines of points of order in which a chair is stating a question without a second, and this being the reason for a point of order being raised. I believe a better passage is p. 35, lines 4-8, including the double-asterisks footnote, the footnote also stating that motions in small boards or committees need not be seconded. It might also be noted by the OP that on p. 487 lines 26-28,  a small board meeting is described as one where "not more than about a dozen members present."

[Guest Meg]

36 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The upset member is not correct.  The a second means, effectively that more than one member wants to discuss the motion(p. 250, ll. 17-25). 

Also note that seconds are not required in small boards (p. 488, l. 1).

Thank you. This is precisely what I was looking for. There's a lot of info out there that contradicts on whether the failed motion may be brought up again. Ugh. Since the motion that was eventually voted on (and approved) involved a contract, I do not us to be in a position where it gets set aside and now we're possibly looking down the barrel of a legal gun. Thanks again.

[Guest Zev]

My understanding is that the motion involving the contract could have a motion to reconsider moved by someone that voted in favor of it, seconded, and then rejected as long as the other party had not been informed of the vote.

[Guest Zev]

(Ugh, I can't edit my own posting.)

The motion to reconsider would have had to have been moved on the same day as the original motion.

Also, if the other party has not been informed of the vote then a motion to rescind the original motion would still be in order.

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

(Ugh, I can't edit my own posting.)

 

Well, then join us, and gain that right and more.

I don't understand why this member is upset.  He made a motion, and it was (eventually) passed.  What exactly is he upset about?

Anyway, it was improper to debate without a motion, and it was improper to make the same motion a second time after it failed.  However, neither issue is timely anymore, and so the motion has been adopted.  

In the future, I think your chair needs to keep a better control on the order of business.  That aside, this seems neatly cleaned up.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with my colleagues and would point out, regarding the lack of a second, that the lack of a second becomes immaterial and is waived once debate begins without someone making a timely point of order

Although mistakes were made, none of them are of such a nature as to invalidate the adoption of the motion..

[jstackpo]

From the point of view of a (possibly harassed) chairman, the lack of a second is most welcome.  It means, of course, that the group can just go on to the next topic and not bother with that one. No chairman, who wants to get out of the meeting by midnight, would ever actually ask "Is there a second?" That is just asking for trouble.  Accept your (unseconded) blessings as they come to you.

[Dan Honemann]

5 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

From the point of view of a (possibly harassed) chairman, the lack of a second is most welcome.  It means, of course, that the group can just go on to the next topic and not bother with that one. No chairman, who wants to get out of the meeting by midnight, would ever actually ask "Is there a second?" That is just asking for trouble.  Accept your (unseconded) blessings as they come to you.

Oh? Take a look at pages 35-36.  

[jstackpo]

Well, I'm just dealing with reality.

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Well, I'm just dealing with reality.

That way lies madness.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/2/2018 at 7:34 PM, Guest Meg said:

Thank you. This is precisely what I was looking for. There's a lot of info out there that contradicts on whether the failed motion may be brought up again.

The confusion seems to arise from the Chair's wording that the motion "failed" due to lack of a second. This is inaccurate. Page 36, lines 3-6 make clear that if there is no second, then the motion has never been placed before the assembly (which is done when the Chair States the motion after it has been moved, seconded, and is deemed in order by the Chair).

Since the unseconded motion never officially existed, there is no restriction on bringing up the motion again.

In short, a motion that was not seconded never officially existed. That is different than it failing.

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur, PRP "Student" said:

The confusion seems to arise from the Chair's wording that the motion "failed" due to lack of a second. This is inaccurate. Page 36, lines 3-6 make clear that if there is no second, then the motion has never been placed before the assembly (which is done when the Chair States the motion after it has been moved, seconded, and is deemed in order by the Chair).

Since the unseconded motion never officially existed, there is no restriction on bringing up the motion again.

In short, a motion that was not seconded never officially existed. That is different than it failing.

What you really have been looking for is what is said on page 337 regarding renewal of a motion that dies for lack of a second.

"The rules restricting renewal of motions also do not apply to any motion that dies for lack of a second. Although such a motion is not treated as if it had never been made, it too is a motion which the assembly was not called upon to decide, and thus it too may be renewed whenever it would originally be in order to make it."

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/5/2018 at 1:15 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

What you really have been looking for is what is said on page 337 regarding renewal of a motion that dies for lack of a second.

"The rules restricting renewal of motions also do not apply to any motion that dies for lack of a second. Although such a motion is not treated as if it had never been made, it too is a motion which the assembly was not called upon to decide, and thus it too may be renewed whenever it would originally be in order to make it."

Thanks. I came across that passage last night. It raises a question about the clause highlighted above. What is the practical distinction between a motion that is not seconded and one that has never been made?

[Dan Honemann]

22 minutes ago, Atul Kapur, PRP "Student" said:

Thanks. I came across that passage last night. It raises a question about the clause highlighted above. What is the practical distinction between a motion that is not seconded and one that has never been made?

Well, for one thing, a main motion that has been withdrawn is normally not entered in the minutes.

[Atul Kapur]

What is the rationale for recording in the minutes a motion that was never seconded? I don't understand why it isn't treated the same way as a withdrawn motion.

[J. J.]

53 minutes ago, Atul Kapur, PRP "Student" said:

What is the rationale for recording in the minutes a motion that was never seconded? I don't understand why it isn't treated the same way as a withdrawn motion.

To show that someone did want to discuss the issue and that no other member did. 

[Guest Zev]

Some organizations have bylaw restrictions on certain motions or classes of motions that may be introduced. For example, a motion dealing with a particular issue may only be introduced say once every quarter. If someone introduces such a motion but then withdraws it then they could re-introduce this motion at next month's meeting. However, if they introduce such a motion and it does not receive a second, then it is recorded in the minutes and the mover must wait until the next quarter before re-introducing it. In other words, the motion exhausted its chances for that quarter. I suppose there could be other examples but this is the only one that comes to mind at this time.

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

Some organizations have bylaw restrictions on certain motions or classes of motions that may be introduced. For example, a motion dealing with a particular issue may only be introduced say once every quarter. If someone introduces such a motion but then withdraws it then they could re-introduce this motion at next month's meeting. However, if they introduce such a motion and it does not receive a second, then it is recorded in the minutes and the mover must wait until the next quarter before re-introducing it. In other words, the motion exhausted its chances for that quarter. I suppose there could be other examples but this is the only one that comes to mind at this time.

But according to page 337, motions which die for lack of a second may be freely renewed whenever it would originally be in order to make them.

Are you relying on the meaning of "introduced" as opposed to "considered" to distinguish such a motion in this case?

[Guest Zev]

I do not disagree. However, the problem in this particular case is the existence of the restriction in the bylaws. I am not trying for a fancy case of interpretation, just what the bylaws may say. Nevertheless, I will stand corrected if someone else can answer Atul Kapur's question about the rationale in a better way.