Seconding a motion

[Guest Ray]

When someone makes a motion and no one officially seconds it, but a person is mad and starts discussing it, is that automatecaly seconded?

[Chris Harrison]

Was the person starting to discuss the motion someone other than the motion maker? If so, I would probably take that as them seconding it. However, in either case if a prompt Point of Order wasn't raised that the motion hadn't been seconded it would be too late to object.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, no one should start debating a motion (whether mad or not) until the chair states the question, nor should they speak until gaining recognition from the chair. But if no Point of Order is raised at the moment, and the assembly continues with the debate phase, the lack of a second is immaterial. The reason for a second on a motion is to guide the chair, confirming for him that at least two people want to bring the motion before the assembly. If someone (other than the maker) starts debating, and perhaps others follow, it would seem clear that the assembly did want to consider the motion.

[Trina]

I would think, however, that as long as only one person has been heard from -- that is, if the motion maker immediately starts in on a harangue about why he favors his own motion -- the debate cannot truly be said to have started, and a point of order could still be raised.

[David A Foulkes]

I would think, however, that as long as only one person has been heard from -- that is, if the motion maker immediately starts in on a harangue about why he favors his own motion -- the debate cannot truly be said to have started, and a point of order could still be raised.

Are you saying that debate hasn't truly begun until a member other than the maker speaks on the motion?

[Guest Edgar]

Are you saying that debate hasn't truly begun until a member other than the maker speaks on the motion?

Absent a second, I don't see how the maker of a motion can properly begin to debate it.

[David A Foulkes]

Absent a second, I don't see how the maker of a motion can properly begin to debate it.

As noted in the original post, if another member immediately starts discussing the motion (without waiting for the chair to state the question, or seeking the floor and properly receiving it, as I assume the circumstance to be), has debate begun?

[Guest Edgar]

As noted in the original post, if another member immediately starts discussing the motion (without waiting for the chair to state the question, or seeking the floor and properly receiving it, as I assume the circumstance to be), has debate begun?

I had intended to reply to Trina's post by suggesting this scenario: A member makes a motion and another member immediately says, "That motion sucks!". Has debate begun (thus obviating the need for a second)? I don't think so and I think that member should be ruled out of order (even if his outburst was less crude).

[David A Foulkes]

I had intended to reply to Trina's post by suggesting this scenario: A member makes a motion and another member immediately says, "That motion sucks!". Has debate begun (thus obviating the need for a second)? I don't think so and I think that member should be ruled out of order (even if his outburst was less crude).

Agreed. Even if the member's remarks did not stray outside the boundaries of decorum, and were germane to the question (and perhaps a wee bit lengthier), no debate is in order until the chair states the question. (p. 40 ll. 16-17) However, if this "debate" is allowed by the present members to continue (with no second and no stating of the question by the chair) with no timely Point of Order, we find ourselves in that grey area of assumed unanimous consent to Suspend The Rules and allow it, which presumably would put the long-absent Rob Elsman into apoplectic shock.

With respect to the OP's question, I'd say the answer is no. RONR speaks of the lack of a second once debate has begun, not the assumption of an automatic second by a non-maker's debate remarks, even if against the question.

[Guest John Raines]

I would ask the unruly member if he is seconding the motion. He will surely say "no" and then I would ask for a proper second. (If he spouts off again then it's time to call him to order.)

[Rev Ed]

I would ask the unruly member if he is seconding the motion. He will surely say "no" and then I would ask for a proper second. (If he spouts off again then it's time to call him to order.)

That would be a good way of handling it - of course the events at the time might have got the Chairman off guard so he wasn't able to do that.

[Gary Novosielski]

That would be a good way of handling it - of course the events at the time might have got the Chairman off guard so he wasn't able to do that.

Well, that's kinda "Chairman 101".

The three basic steps of introducing business are a motion, a second, and statement of the motion by the chair. Only then may members seek recognition for the purposes of debate.

If that catches him off guard, what's he going to do when something weird happens?

[Trina]

Are you saying that debate hasn't truly begun until a member other than the maker speaks on the motion?

No... if the chair states the motion (overlooking the fact that no one has seconded it), and no one points out the lack of a second, and if the chair then recognizes the motion maker to speak first in debate -- then debate clearly has started.

What I meant was the situation where no other voice has been heard -- i.e. the motion maker states his motion, and then plows ahead with a speech on why his motion should be adopted. In that case, I think there is still time for a point of order.

In reading the original post I somehow thought the person who "is mad and starts discussing" was the motion maker himself; reading it again today, it sounds more as though that may have been a different member chiming in with his opinion...