Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:17 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:17 PM I certainly do not claim that the main motion was finally disposed of directly or indirectly, nor do I claim that the main motion was temporarily disposed of in any one of the four ways described in RONR (10th ed.), p. 88, ll. 19-25.Okay. So since the rules require that the disposition of the motion be recorded, what would you suggest the Secretary put? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:22 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:22 PM Okay. So since the rules require that the disposition of the motion be recorded, what would you suggest the Secretary put?No rule in RONR requires all main motions to have been disposed of before the assembly can adjourn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:25 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:25 PM No rule in RONR requires all main motions to have been disposed of before the assembly can adjourn.Yeah, but if a motion is recorded with no disposition just before the minutes note the time of adjournment, I think the members understand that consideration of the motion was interrupted by adjournment. If the motion shows up in the middle of the minutes without a disposition I suspect members who weren't at the meeting reading the minutes later will wonder if this is simply an omission. Some sort of note explaining what happened seems desirable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:29 PM Yeah, but if a motion is recorded with no disposition just before the minutes note the time of adjournment, I think the members understand that consideration of the motion was interrupted by adjournment. If the motion shows up in the middle of the minutes without a disposition I suspect members who weren't at the meeting reading the minutes later will wonder if this is simply an omission. Some sort of note explaining what happened seems desirable.As far as I can tell, nothing happened. Why would one want to explain what happened when nothing happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:34 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:34 PM Why would one want to explain what happened when nothing happened?All I'm saying is that if, in the middle of the minutes, I saw a motion with no disposition attached to it, I would assume that this was an omission by the Secretary, and not that the motion simply faded into nothingness because the chair didn't know how to properly handle a request to withdraw the motion. With that in mind, if I were the Secretary I would wonder what I should write to avoid members asking me what's missing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:38 PM What should be recorded for the disposition of the motion?I would presume that what should be recorded is whatever the chair announced--which in this case was presumably, "The motion is withdrawn,"--which in turn would suggest that nothing should be recorded in the minutes.Although the rules do not require all main motions to be disposed of before adjournment, they certainly require all but one to be disposed of. If any business was conducted after the pseudowithdrawal of the motion then it must have been disposed of at least temporarily, or else no new main motion would have been in order.Is there any doubt that if the members had been polled immediately afterward, that they would have said it was withdrawn? This may be a misconception, but it is a common one--at least as common as the myth that "friendly" amendments can be "accepted" by the mover and seconder. And while it may not excuse the failure of any member of the assembly to object to the breach, nor the failure of the president to rule correctly, it does go a long way toward explaining these failures. It certainly does not surprise me to hear that they occur with regularity.Rules don't enforce themselves, and if the chair does not know the rules, and the assembly does not know the rules, but everyone thinks they know the rules, this sort of thing can happen routinely. That doesn't make it right, but it makes it fairly unremarkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:41 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:41 PM I would presume that what should be recorded is whatever the chair announced--which in this case was presumably, "The motion is withdrawn,"--which in turn would suggest that nothing should be recorded in the minutes. Yes, I agree, I'm just trying to understand how Mr. Elsman would advise the Secretary to proceed with the situation.Although the rules do not require all main motions to be disposed of before adjournment, they certainly require all but one to be disposed of.Well, that's not really true, as a motion may be scheduled to come up for a later time. I understand what you mean, though. Once a motion is before the assembly, it must be disposed of in some fashion for the assembly to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:44 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:44 PM All I'm saying is that if, in the middle of the minutes, I saw a motion with no disposition attached to it, I would assume that this was an omission by the Secretary, and not that the motion simply faded into nothingness because the chair didn't know how to properly handle a request to withdraw the motion. With that in mind, if I were the Secretary I would wonder what I should write to avoid members asking me what's missing.Why shouldn't the members ask what is missing when there is something missing? When the Request for Leave to Withdraw a Motion was made and seconded, the president had the duty of his office to put the motion to a vote, RONR (10th ed.), p. 434, ll. 7-15. The facts we have been given seem to me to indicate that this was not done, so something really is missing, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:47 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:47 PM Why shouldn't the members ask what is missing when there is something missing? When the Request for Leave to Withdraw a Motion was made and seconded, the president had the duty of his office to put the motion to a vote, RONR (10th ed.), p. 434, ll. 7-15. The facts we have been given seem to me to indicate that this was not done, so something really is missing, here.That is a fair argument. I suppose the Secretary can handle it by directing his questions to the chair and let him deal with the mess he created. I'm still with Mr. Novosielski on this one, but your argument does seem reasonable now that I've heard all the facets of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 3, 2011 at 11:18 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 11:18 PM Despite how improperly this was all handled, it seems to me a perfect candidate for a correction to the minutes at the next meeting to indicate that the motion was withdrawn (with perhaps "unanimous consent"). Sadly, we find ourselves in the all-to-frequent circumstance of discussing this amongst ourselves (35 posts now!) with no further input from the OP. Still, a very instructive thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 4, 2011 at 08:46 PM Report Share Posted March 4, 2011 at 08:46 PM Why shouldn't the members ask what is missing when there is something missing? When the Request for Leave to Withdraw a Motion was made and seconded, the president had the duty of his office to put the motion to a vote, RONR (10th ed.), p. 434, ll. 7-15. The facts we have been given seem to me to indicate that this was not done, so something really is missing, here.That is a fair argument. I suppose the Secretary can handle it by directing his questions to the chair and let him deal with the mess he created. I'm still with Mr. Novosielski on this one, but your argument does seem reasonable now that I've heard all the facets of it.I don't think it does.If the chair declares that a motion is withdrawn, this clearly falls under his parliamentary duties as presiding officer. If any member wishes to question whether permission of the assembly is actually required for the motion to properly be withdrawn under the particular circumstances, he should raise a point of order at the time.To claim, after the meeting, that the proper procedure was not followed and therefore the motion is somehow still pending -- and that the secretary on his own should make this determination without any point of order having been raised -- would leave the membership in the absurd situation of leaving every meeting without being able to know was actually done at that meeting, because the chair might have been mistaken as to what the rules required for the adoption of a particular motion or the taking of some parliamentary action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.