Reviving a motion after lack of a second

[Guest Bill]

Can and how to revive a motion that dies for lack of a second?

[Tim Wynn]

Can and how to revive a motion that dies for lack of a second?

Make it again, but get somebody to second it this time.

[BryanSullo]

Make it again, but get somebody to second it this time.

Is that permitted in the same session? If the motion dies due to lack of a second, is it considered to have been "disposed of".

[Guest Bill]

Can and how to revive a motion that dies for lack of a second?

It will be at a different session.

[jstackpo]

"Disposed of"? I don't think so. It, the motion, is simply "Not before this meeting", p. 36 (even though it does go in the minutes).

"Disposed of" implies (to me at least) some sort of positive action on the part of the assembly, not just sitting on their hands and keeping their mouths shut.

[Dan Honemann]

Is that permitted in the same session? If the motion dies due to lack of a second, is it considered to have been "disposed of".

Yes, a motion that dies for lack of a second can be made again at the same session.

[Guest Guest]

Yes, a motion that dies for lack of a second can be made again at the same session.

So, obviously, since at a different session, a new motion can be made (is an explanation necessary?)

[Dan Honemann]

So, obviously, since at a different session, a new motion can be made (is an explanation necessary?)

Huh?

[Guest Guest]

Huh?

the motion died for lack of a second at a previous meeting. will be meeting again, and the same motion will be made...is that proper, and what is my explanation to the group as to what rule allows it?

[Trina]

the motion died for lack of a second at a previous meeting. will be meeting again, and the same motion will be made...is that proper, and what is my explanation to the group as to what rule allows it?

'At any later session... any motion that is still applicable can normally be renewed' (RONR 11th ed. p. 88 ll. 18-20)

'Any motion that is still applicable can be renewed at any later session, except where a specific rule prevents its renewal...' (p.337 ll 22-23)

Even a motion that is fully debated, and voted down, can be made again at the next meeting, from scratch -- as if it had never been made before. A motion that doesn't get a second can be made again even at the very same meeting (see Mr. Honemann's comment above). Certainly there is no impediment to making the motion again at a later meeting.

Are Guest_Bill and Guest_Guest the same poster?

[Tim Wynn]

Is that permitted in the same session? If the motion dies due to lack of a second, is it considered to have been "disposed of".

Yes, it's permitted.

No, it was not disposed of. It did not come before the assembly, and the assembly was not asked to decide it.

[BryanSullo]

No, it was not disposed of. It did not come before the assembly, and the assembly was not asked to decide it.

Ah! Therein lies the key: A motion is disposed of when the assembly makes a decision on it. Got it.

[jstackpo]

Sort of (in my view anyway..)

Doing nothing - i.e., not seconding - is a decision of sorts, enough of one to require the unseconded motion to go in the minutes, but it takes a "positive" decision - actually voting, whether up, down, postpone, commit, &c. - to erect a sufficient barrier to prevent same-meeting renewal.

A related question: If an unseconded motion is, later in the same meeting, made and this time seconded, (and eventually disposed of) does the first instance of the unseconded motion still go in the minutes?

[Guest guest]

Sort of (in my view anyway..)

Doing nothing - i.e., not seconding - is a decision of sorts, enough of one to require the unseconded motion to go in the minutes, but it takes a "positive" decision - actually voting, whether up, down, postpone, commit, &c. - to erect a sufficient barrier to prevent same-meeting renewal.

A related question: If an unseconded motion is, later in the same meeting, made and this time seconded, (and eventually disposed of) does the first instance of the unseconded motion still go in the minutes?

Yes

[Guest Edgar]

Are Guest_Bill and Guest_Guest the same poster?

And are Guest_Guest and Guest_guest the same poster? It would seem not. But it seems the least a guest can do is make up a name and be consistent with it.

[Tim Wynn]

A related question: If an unseconded motion is, later in the same meeting, made and this time seconded, (and eventually disposed of) does the first instance of the unseconded motion still go in the minutes?

If any of the details are different, such as the maker or the wording, it is essential that it be included.

If it is identical, I think it does more GOOD than harm to INCLUDE it, and I suppose, for clarity, it could be recorded as the following:

A motion by Ms. Taylor "That the fence be painted green," after initially dying for lack of a second, was later adopted after debate.

[Leo]

Sort of (in my view anyway..)

Doing nothing - i.e., not seconding - is a decision of sorts, enough of one to require the unseconded motion to go in the minutes, but it takes a "positive" decision - actually voting, whether up, down, postpone, commit, &c. - to erect a sufficient barrier to prevent same-meeting renewal.

A related question: If an unseconded motion is, later in the same meeting, made and this time seconded, (and eventually disposed of) does the first instance of the unseconded motion still go in the minutes?

Does this mean I have to update the minutes article in the National Parliamentarian? I think Tim has the right idea to include the action in passing.

[Gary Novosielski]

No, you don't need any explanation when you renew the motion next time. In general, it's proper to put the burden of proof on those who are claiming that you can't do something.

Trina's citations verify your position, but the main point is that you can renew a failed motion at the next session because there is no rule against doing so, and if someone says there is, let them give you a citation to prove it. (They won't be able to.)

Revisiting a motion that passed is more complicated, because things may already be in effect as a result, but a failed motion didn't do anything, so there's less worry about what might need to be undone.

[Tim Wynn]

It should be noted that a motion dying for lack of a second is not the same as a motion being considered and lost.

[Tim Wynn]

the motion died for lack of a second at a previous meeting. will be meeting again, and the same motion will be made...is that proper, and what is my explanation to the group as to what rule allows it?

Show them RONR(11th ed), p. 337, ll. 1-6.