Guest Jake Vatter Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:15 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:15 AM A motion was made to donate money to a charitable organization, seconded and discussion followed. During the discussion the individual that had seconded the motion withdrew his second so the discussion was stopped and no vote was attempted. At a subsquent meeting the motion was again brought to the floor, seconded and discussion followed. A vote on the motion was called and passed. Now there is a question whether the second motion was legal. RONR page 325 starting on line 21 states "A motion that is withdrawn becomes as if it had never been made and can be renewed whenever it would be would be originally in order, since the assembly was never asked to decide it". It appears from the quote that the second motion was legal and binding. Please help clarify this matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:17 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:17 AM It appears from the quote that the second motion was legal and binding. Please help clarify this matterIt appears that way to me also. What's to clarify?(By the way, you can't withdraw a second any more than you can put toothpaste back in the tube.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:19 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:19 AM (By the way, you can't withdraw a second any more than you can put toothpaste back in the tube.)It is in order to withdraw a second before the question has been stated by the chair.During the discussion the individual that had seconded the motion withdrew his second so the discussion was stopped and no vote was attempted.For future reference, it is not in order for a member to withdraw his second after the question has been stated by the chair.It appears from the quote that the second motion was legal and binding. Please help clarify this matterThe second motion is indeed legal and binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:40 AM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 01:40 AM A motion was made to donate money to a charitable organization, seconded and discussion followed. During the discussion the individual that had seconded the motion withdrew his second so the discussion was stopped and no vote was attempted. At a subsquent meeting the motion was again brought to the floor, seconded and discussion followed. A vote on the motion was called and passed. Now there is a question whether the second motion was legal. RONR page 325 starting on line 21 states "A motion that is withdrawn becomes as if it had never been made and can be renewed whenever it would be would be originally in order, since the assembly was never asked to decide it". It appears from the quote that the second motion was legal and binding. Please help clarify this matterWell, that particular citation does not actually apply because the motion was never withdrawn. And withdrawal of a second is parliamentary nonsense, once discussion is underway.What did happen was an error on the part of the chair, resulting in a failure to put the question on the motion with no justification. But even if that would prevent the motion from being renewed at the same session (which it wouldn't), it certainly would not prevent it from being renewed at a subsequent session--not even if it had originally been defeated outright instead of just mistakenly dropped.What is the supposed basis for this "question" about the legality of the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted March 31, 2011 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 08:48 PM During the discussion the individual that had seconded the motion withdrew his second so the discussion was stopped and no vote was attempted. Well, that particular citation does not actually apply because the motion was never withdrawn. True enough, Gary. But practically speaking, what is the difference? It's not as if any further action was taken (e.g. postponing or referring). By the assembly (at least implicitly) agreeing to stop further consideration of the question, including the mover, I guess, isn't it basically the same as withdrawing the motion? Just wondering aloud... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:08 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:08 PM True enough, Gary. But practically speaking, what is the difference? It's not as if any further action was taken (e.g. postponing or referring). By the assembly (at least implicitly) agreeing to stop further consideration of the question, including the mover, I guess, isn't it basically the same as withdrawing the motion? Just wondering aloud...Well there's a practical difference between a motion that's been withdrawn and one that's been defeated. Among other things, the former can be renewed at the same meeting, and the latter would have to wait until a future meeting, unless it was Reconsidered.If things had been handled correctly, it would be easy to say which rule applied, but what we've got here is simply a mistake by the chair, who failed to put the question, and by the assembly which failed to call him on it. But you're right that practically speaking it makes no difference now, because this all took place at a past meeting, and the motion can simply be renewed next time. There's no need to untangle the messed up procedure because it's water under the bridge at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:15 PM It is in order to withdraw a second before the question has been stated by the chair.Fair enough. Though I suspect that, in practical terms, that window of opportunity is astonishingly small and I'm at a loss as to what would prompt the seconder to change his mind so quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:41 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:41 PM At a subsquent meeting the motion was again brought to the floor...In general, a motion can be renewed at any later session, unless it's already set to come up at the meeting. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 326, l. 17-19.So, it was in order to adopt the motion, though there are a few details that dictate HOW the motion should have come before the assembly, but that's of no importance, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:46 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:46 PM Fair enough. Though I suspect that, in practical terms, that window of opportunity is astonishingly small and I'm at a loss as to what would prompt the seconder to change his mind so quickly.p. 284, l. 21-22. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:50 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:50 PM p. 284, l. 21-22.Okay, thanks. But considering that the modifier is considered to have seconded the motion, the withdrawal of the (original) second serves no practical purpose.And I wonder how often any of this actually transpires in what RONR describes as a "brief interval". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 at 10:58 PM Okay, thanks. But considering that the modifier is considered to have seconded the motion, the withdrawal of the (original) second serves no practical purpose.In that same interval, the maker could modify the motion without a suggester who provides a replacement second, in which case the withdrawal would serve a purpose. And I wonder how often any of this actually transpires in what RONR describes as a "brief interval".Right next door to Never. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.