Atul Kapur

From the Glossary of Bourinot's Rules of Order, a Canadian authority:

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?

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.