Guest newby Posted February 13, 2012 at 04:22 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 04:22 AM Can the Secretary make a motion to accept his own minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 13, 2012 at 04:26 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 04:26 AM Can the Secretary make a motion to accept his own minutes?Yes, but there is no need for anyone to make a motion to accept the minutes. After any corrections to the minutes have been handled, the chair may simply declare the minutes approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 13, 2012 at 01:29 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2012 at 01:29 PM Can the Secretary make a motion to accept his own minutes?See RONR (11th ed.), p. 354, ll. 23-33. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Angela Posted February 14, 2012 at 02:26 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 02:26 PM A motion made by 2 members (co maker) require a second Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 14, 2012 at 02:44 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 02:44 PM A motion made by 2 members (co maker) require a secondAssuming 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 More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 14, 2012 at 03:17 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 03:17 PM A motion made by 2 members (co maker) require a secondI 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 More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 14, 2012 at 11:36 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 11:36 PM 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 More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted February 14, 2012 at 11:49 PM Report Share Posted February 14, 2012 at 11:49 PM 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.