wwdslovene Posted September 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 at 11:40 PM I realize that RONR states that the person who seconds a motion is not mentioned in the Minutes.Am I correct in assuming however, that every motion needs a second in order to proceed?What happens with, e.g. a motion to adjourn? Does the person who seconds the motion need to be identified?I have no understanding of what a secondary motion is as opposed to a main motion.Any help will be greatly appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 12:00 AM Every motion? Technically, yes. But the chair can relax things if it is obvious that folks want to deal with the motion right away. No need to identify seconder EVER."Secondary Motion": See RONR, pp. 58 ff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 12:16 AM Every motion? Technically, yes.But see the table at the back of RONR for those motions which do not require a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 10, 2012 at 01:46 AM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 01:46 AM Slovene1, after a year and a half, and 52 posts, you have read RONR - In Brief at least once, and own your own RONR, 11th Ed, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwdslovene Posted September 10, 2012 at 05:21 PM Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 05:21 PM Thank you. Mr. Tesser, for embarrassing me and making me feel unwelcome here after my 52 apparently idiotic questions.I guess that I misunderstood the purpose of this forum. I thought that it was a place where an ignoramus like myself could pose questions to experts as opposed to a conversation among yourselves. The 11th edition of RONR has more than 700 pages.I do not have a legalistic mind, and I often cannot find answers which I seek either for lack of time (I do have other daily dutiesto attend to) or trying to sort out what appears to me to be unclear or contradictory.I thank those people who along the way have offered their help and direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 10, 2012 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 at 06:35 PM Oh, don't be put off by GcT; he hasn't been getting enough sleep lately.But rather than worry about the 700+ pages of RONR, get a copy of the 176 page RONRIB:"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get it at this link.It is written for the non-legalistic mind and covers all you probably will ever need to know about procedure in meetings, &c. And if you run into something not in RONRIB, come on back and give GcT another try (or me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 11, 2012 at 02:42 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 02:42 AM Aw geez! I didn't mean to embarrass him, but to get a starting point!(For example, if he replied that he has an RONR - IB, I would have pointed him to the bottom of p. 23 to the next page; and, better, if he has an RONR 11th, to look at p. 58 - 60, especially looking at the list at the top of p. 59).It's unethical to embarrass people, in the first place, for that matter, and I think that's an understructure (if I may neologize) (and uh-oh, "neologize" isn't itself a word either, yet) of Robert's Rules's sensibility. (If I understand correctly, the Bible says that embarrassing someone is tantamount, or close to, killing someone. And Ms Truss says that the English consider it impolite to correct someone, for likewise reasons, and I think it would be nice it that would catch on. Certainly cut down on Taliban monsters throwing acid onto the faces of girls who venture into the street with their faces uncovered.(Ohh, I bet I digress. It's been a tough week. I used to use the last four word on p. 288 as a refuge, but they have moved.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 11, 2012 at 02:43 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 02:43 AM Maybe John's right, I haven't been getting enough sleep lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 10:43 AM I'm mostly bothered by the incorrect number of closing parentheses in your plea bargain above. But that's me, as always. Besides, you never get enough sleep. Must be something else. Maybe something you ate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM I'm mostly bothered by the incorrect number of closing parentheses in your plea bargain above. But that's me, as always.You are not alone... see:http://xkcd.com/859/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:12 AM You are not alone... see:http://xkcd.com/859/Thank you. I couldn't quite pin down the uneasy feeling I was left with, but it makes sense (now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 at 11:30 AM Must be something else. Maybe something you ate.Maybe something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.