Guest ajc marshall Posted January 25, 2012 at 02:31 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 02:31 PM When preparing minutes for a Board meeting. Is is called for, required, or not common practice to note who made and seconded the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 25, 2012 at 02:34 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 02:34 PM When preparing minutes for a Board meeting. Is is called for, required, or not common practice to note who made and seconded the motion?The maker of main motions, yes. The seconder, no, unless ordered by the society. (RONR 11th Ed., p. 470 ll. 26-28) However, in "small" board meetings (of about a dozen or fewer members) the rules are relaxed and seconds are not required. (RONR 11th Ed., p. 487 l. 26ff) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watson Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:08 PM No, it not 'common practice'. The making and seconding of a motion only indicate that at least two members think a subject should be discussed. Once the motion has been stated by the chair ("It has been moved and seconded that ... ) the motion belongs to the board and its origin has little relevance. However, if the board is required to report to a larger body and/or if the ogranization has a special rule of order that the names must be recorded, the secretary should follow whatever practice is common or required.If the chair 'assumes' a motion, or if a motion is passed by 'general consent', there would be no names to record anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:15 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:15 PM 'The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly.' (RONR 11th ed. p.470 ll. 26-28).This was previously cited by Mr. Foulkes, but I'm quoting the exact language because of the comments by RTW -- which could be read to indicate that there's no specific requirement to put the name of the maker of the motion into the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:28 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:28 PM Once the motion has been stated by the chair ("It has been moved and seconded that ... ) the motion belongs to the board and its origin has little relevance.I'm afraid this is misleading, at best.Not only should the name of the maker of the motion be recorded in the minutes (as previously indicated), but the maker is prohibited from speaking against that motion in debate. That seems pretty relevant to me.Ekgq4e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:36 PM I'm afraid this is misleading, at best.Not only should the name of the maker of the motion be recorded in the minutes (as previously indicated), but the maker is prohibited from speaking against that motion in debate. That seems pretty relevant to me.Ekgq4eNot to mention who is allowed to withdraw the motion. So, yes, during the meeting the maker's name should be noted by the Secretary, and after it should be recorded in the minutes per RONR as cited above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Watson Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:50 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 04:50 PM Thank you, Trina & Edgar; I stand corrected. This is a change from the 10th ed. which I failed to research [RONR (10th ed.), p. 452, l. 17-19]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 25, 2012 at 05:59 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 05:59 PM Thank you, Trina & Edgar; I stand corrected. This is a change from the 10th ed. which I failed to research [RONR (10th ed.), p. 452, l. 17-19].No, it isn't. Or more accurately, the only channge it that the 10th edition said that the name of the make of all "important motions" should be recorded, while the 11th specifies "main motions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 25, 2012 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted January 25, 2012 at 07:50 PM But Weldon, what about line 21, which RTW would have done well to have gone on and read? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted January 28, 2012 at 05:24 AM Report Share Posted January 28, 2012 at 05:24 AM But Weldon, what about line 21, which RTW would have done well to have gone on and read?Sorry for the delayed response; I have not had a chance to check the forum for a couple of days. Also, unfrotunatly, I do not have my copy of the 10th edition with me, so I am not sure what is on line 21. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 29, 2012 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted January 29, 2012 at 09:33 PM My apologies to Mr Merritt: the 10th says what he said it said. Line 21 is just more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Terry Dettmar Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:24 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:24 PM Is the the Chair allowed to make a motion or must he pass the gavel first? Does it matter that only 4 of 5 Commisioners are present for the previous question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:43 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:43 PM Is the the Chair allowed to make a motion or must he pass the gavel first? Does it matter that only 4 of 5 Commisioners are present for the previous question?Per RONR (11th Ed., pp. 487-488) in "small board meetings" where there are about a dozen or fewer members in attendance, the Chair may participate as fully as any other member, including making motions and voting. In larger assemblies, the Chair should not be making motions without relinquishing the chair.The phrase "previous question" has a parliamentary significance that I'm not sure you employing here. The Previous Question is a subsidiary motion that if adopted, brings debate on a pending question (or series of) to an end and the vote is immediately taken. So, what do you mean by "previous question?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:51 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 at 01:51 PM The phrase "previous question" has a parliamentary significance that I'm not sure you employing here. The Previous Question is a subsidiary motion that if adopted, brings debate on a pending question (or series of) to an end and the vote is immediately taken. So, what do you mean by "previous question?"Probably what any normal person means by it.What's not clear to me is what's "previous" about the question as RONR uses the term. Seems more like the motion applies to the current, pending, question, not the previous one. Unless the previous question is the one previous to the Previous Question question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 1, 2012 at 02:07 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 at 02:07 PM Probably what any normal person means by it.What's not clear to me is what's "previous" about the question as RONR uses the term. Seems more like the motion applies to the current, pending, question, not the previous one. Unless the previous question is the one previous to the Previous Question question?Historically, I believe there was a time in its pre-Robert-ian development over the ages when the Previous Question, when adopted, actually disposed of all pending questions (amendments, referrals, etc) except the main motion itself -- or the "previous" question -- on which the vote was then immediately taken. It has since been modified into the form we know it today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 1, 2012 at 02:20 PM Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 at 02:20 PM Historically, I believe there was a time in its pre-Robert-ian development over the ages when the Previous Question, when adopted, actually disposed of all pending questions (amendments, referrals, etc) except the main motion itself -- or the "previous" question -- on which the vote was then immediately taken. It has since been modified into the form we know it today.A synopsis can be found on pages 117-118 of the 1915 Edition (as well as elsewhere). But nevermind, I suppose we should ignore all this and change the name just to satisfy those who don't much know or care about history.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted February 2, 2012 at 04:03 AM Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 at 04:03 AM A synopsis can be found on pages 117-118 of the 1915 Edition (as well as elsewhere). But nevermind, I suppose we should ignore all this and change the name just to satisfy those who don't much know or care about history.. OK, thanks. Shall I inform Henry about the change or do you want to be the one who gets slugged? :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.