a second

[Guest norteape]

Which motions don't require a second?

[jstackpo]

You will find lists in the "edge-tinted" pages of RONR.

[Josh Martin]

You will find lists in the "edge-tinted" pages of RONR.

In particular, the lists for motions which do not require a second are on tinted pages 42-43.

[Rob Elsman]

In particular, the lists for motions which do not require a second are on tinted pages 42-43.

I agree with Mr. Martin. Also, in small boards, seconds are not required at all.

[David A Foulkes]

Once debate commences, or (in the absence of debate) once a member has cast the first vote, the lack of a second is immaterial. (p. 35 l. 22-25) Thus, the requirement of a second is not a hard-and-fast, carved in marble rule. Which gets me wondering...........

Is there in fact any motion that absolutely requires a second, without which any and all debate and all voting are out of order and could be ruled null and void?

[Tim Wynn]

Once debate commences, or (in the absence of debate) once a member has cast the first vote, the lack of a second is immaterial. (p. 35 l. 22-25) Thus, the requirement of a second is not a hard-and-fast, carved in marble rule. Which gets me wondering...........

It's as much a rule as any other. The way in which its absence becomes immaterial represents a breach of the rules or the decision of the chair that common sense dictates it should be placed before the assembly due to obvious support.

Is there in fact any motion that absolutely requires a second, ...

Yes, see the first sentence of the answer above.

without which any and all debate and all voting are out of order and could be ruled null and void?

No, but I like idea of debate being null and void.

[David A Foulkes]

It's as much a rule as any other. The way in which its absence becomes immaterial represents a breach of the rules or the decision of the chair that common sense dictates it should be placed before the assembly due to obvious support.

But the purpose of a second is to aid the chair in determining if the motion should come before the assembly, which is to say at least two people favor consideration of the motion. If, after a motion is made, and before the chair either asks for a second or states the question without waiting for it, another member enters into debate of the motion, it follows that at least two people favor consideration. The point at that moment becomes moot. This is not to condone this procedure, but it seems the second has been offered through commencement of debate.

Yes, see the first sentence of the answer above.

So many answers above.

No, but I like idea of debate being null and void.

Well, we've had enough posts here that describe just that situation!

[Dan Honemann]

But the purpose of a second is to aid the chair in determining if the motion should come before the assembly, which is to say at least two people favor consideration of the motion. If, after a motion is made, and before the chair either asks for a second or states the question without waiting for it, another member enters into debate of the motion, it follows that at least two people favor consideration. The point at that moment becomes moot. This is not to condone this procedure, but it seems the second has been offered through commencement of debate.

But, ordinarily, the maker of the motion speaks first.

[Tim Wynn]

But the purpose of a second is to aid the chair in determining if the motion should come before the assembly, which is to say at least two people favor consideration of the motion. If, after a motion is made, and before the chair either asks for a second or states the question without waiting for it, another member enters into debate of the motion, it follows that at least two people favor consideration. The point at that moment becomes moot. This is not to condone this procedure, but it seems the second has been offered through commencement of debate.

First, a member cannot properly debate a motion before it is pending (p. 373, l.12-15).

Second, the chair, seeing that a member wishes to debate a motion, should inform the member of the proper procedure (i.e. to second the motion); the chair should not allow the motion to die for lack of a second, because the member improperly began a premature speech on the motion instead of properly seconding it.

[Dan Honemann]

... the chair should not allow the motion to die for lack of a second, because the member improperly began a premature speech on the motion instead of properly seconding it.

I don't understand this at all.

[Tim Wynn]

I don't understand this at all.

My point was that if two members want a motion to come before the assembly, the chair shouldn't allow it to die for lack of a second, just because members didn't know to second it.

[David A Foulkes]

My point was that if two members want a motion to come before the assembly, the chair shouldn't allow it to die for lack of a second, just because members didn't know to second it.

Why would it die? Once debate begins, the lack of a second is immaterial.

Scenario:

1. Member #1 makes a motion

2. Over-eager member #2 rises with "Mr. Chairman!"

3. Chair recognizes member #2 (after all, he could Object to Consideration, or ask if the member would withdraw if he knew xyz, or whatever)

4. Member #2 begins clearly debating the merits of the motion

It's now too late to raise a Point of Order, nor is it appropriate anyway since clearly two members wish to bring the question before the assembly (p. 35). No second required, and the question is now before the assembly. Yes, it was a parliamentary rough road getting there, with no second, and the chair not properly stating the question. Yes, the maker has the right to speak first "if he claims it before anyone else has been recognized" (p. 41). Just didn't work out that way. And the motion does not die.

[Rob Elsman]

Why would it die? Once debate begins, the lack of a second is immaterial.

Scenario:

1. Member #1 makes a motion

2. Over-eager member #2 rises with "Mr. Chairman!"

3. Chair recognizes member #2 (after all, he could Object to Consideration, or ask if the member would withdraw if he knew xyz, or whatever)

4. Member #2 begins clearly debating the merits of the motion

It's now too late to raise a Point of Order, nor is it appropriate anyway since clearly two members wish to bring the question before the assembly (p. 35). No second required, and the question is now before the assembly. Yes, it was a parliamentary rough road getting there, with no second, and the chair not properly stating the question. Yes, the maker has the right to speak first "if he claims it before anyone else has been recognized" (p. 41). Just didn't work out that way. And the motion does not die.

The chair should not give a member unlimited recognition immediately after a motion has been made and before it has been stated. If a member rises, the chair should ask for what purpose the member rises and recognize him for that limited purpose. If the member begins to make a speech, the chair should interrupt and rule that the member is out of order on account that he is using the floor for a purpose for which the member was not recognized. Then, the chair should repeat the motion and ask if there is a second.

[Tim Wynn]

Why would it die? Once debate begins, the lack of a second is immaterial.

Scenario:

1. Member #1 makes a motion

2. Over-eager member #2 rises with "Mr. Chairman!"

3. Chair recognizes member #2 (after all, he could Object to Consideration, or ask if the member would withdraw if he knew xyz, or whatever)

4. Member #2 begins clearly debating the merits of the motion

It's now too late to raise a Point of Order, nor is it appropriate anyway since clearly two members wish to bring the question before the assembly (p. 35). No second required, and the question is now before the assembly. Yes, it was a parliamentary rough road getting there, with no second, and the chair not properly stating the question. Yes, the maker has the right to speak first "if he claims it before anyone else has been recognized" (p. 41). Just didn't work out that way. And the motion does not die.

A member speaking on a motion that has not been stated yet is NOT an example of a situation where the lack of a second has become immaterial.

A member might make a motion no one else wants considered, and if a member says, "That's ridiculous," it doesn't mean debate has begun. It doesn't mean its consideration cannot be objected to.