Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Motions


Guest newby

Recommended Posts

A motion made by 2 members (co maker) require a second

Assuming the above is intended as a question...

I don't think RONR really contemplates a motion made by multiple members, except in the case of a recommendation coming from a committee with more than one member. In that case (committee recommendation) no second is required. I suppose a similar argument could be made here -- namely that a second member is clearly interested in seeing the matter considered by the assembly (so no additional 'second' ... actually, no 'third'... would be needed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A motion made by 2 members (co maker) require a second

I have yet to come across the word "co-maker" in RONR. Even in the case of a recommendation by a committee (consisting of more than one person) that thus does not require a second, only one member makes the associated motion.

Perhaps you could embellish on your posting to clarify what you are saying, or asking. Although, since your post doesn't, on the surface, seem to be related to Guest_newby's, maybe you could start a new question if it is in fact unrelated to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose a similar argument could be made here -- namely that a second member is clearly interested in seeing the matter considered by the assembly (so no additional 'second' ... actually, no 'third'... would be needed).

I concur with this reasoning, unless the organization has its customized special rules on the subject (which may well be the case, given the "co-makers" issue). There are cases in which it is clear that more than one member wishes a motion to be considered, and therefore, no second is necessary. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 40, lines 27-32; pg. 290, lines 10-14; pg. 293, lines 4-9.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with this reasoning, unless the organization has its customized special rules on the subject (which may well be the case, given the "co-makers" issue). There are cases in which it is clear that more than one member wishes a motion to be considered, and therefore, no second is necessary. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 40, lines 27-32; pg. 290, lines 10-14; pg. 293, lines 4-9.

I would add p. 36, ll. 28-31, which gives the purpose of a second as "to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly's having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...