Motion being brought to the floor from the board.

[Guest Dave Senseney]

We have a board of deacons in our church who brings different issues to the congregation for approval. A board member makes a motion and gets a second that the recommendation be brought to the congregation in a business meeting for a vote. In the congregational meeting, does the moderator bring the motion to the floor for a vote yes or no, or does there need to be a motion and second from the floor, discussion, then a vote? Recently our moderator has brought two recommendations passed by the board to the floor of a business meeting, has introduced the recommendation and said we don't need a motion or second because the deacons have already made the motion, second, and passed it, so we only need to have discussion and a vote.

[Guest Edgar]

The "reporting member" of the board makes a motion at the congregational meeting. No second is required (since the board consists of more than one member). The motion is then handled as usual (e.g. debate, possible amendment, and vote).

[Bruce Lages]

And if your moderator is the presiding officer at the congregational meeting, he shouldn't be the one to introduce the motion. Someone else should be the 'reporting member' for the board.

[Guest Edgar]

And if your moderator is the presiding officer at the congregational meeting, he shouldn't be the one to introduce the motion. Someone else should be the 'reporting member' for the board.

I assume the moderator is the presiding officer at congregational meetings but it's not clear (at least to me) that he is (also) a member of the board.

[Bruce Lages]

I think whether the moderator is a member of the board or not, he shouldn't be introducing motions at the meeting he is presiding over.

[Gary c Tesser]

I think whether the moderator is a member of the board or not, he shouldn't be introducing motions at the meeting he is presiding over.

I agree, and I assume that Guest_Edgar, having read p. 506, lines 9 - 12, does also, and was not saying otherwise, looking only to identify the cast of characters.

[Guest Carole]

May a resolution brought before a body be multifunctional? May it contain a motion as well as rescind a prior motion that may have been passed on the subject?

[Guest Edgar]

May a resolution brought before a body be multifunctional? May it contain a motion as well as rescind a prior motion that may have been passed on the subject?

Please post your new question as a new topic. This forum works best that way.

[BryanSullo]

I think the OP's question has been answered, but I'm going to offer my own clarification (before muddying the waters again).

What Guest_Edgar_* is assuming in his first answer is that your Deaconate board understands that it is customary and proper for each board's report to contain one or more motions. I found that our boards and committees were not aware of that. The would give their report without offering any motions, and then, during New Business, one of the board members would make a motion "on behalf of the board".

I've since explained to them that, when they do it this way, the member making the motion is acting as an individual member, and not as the board. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong in that statement.) I've added the caveat that I don't know what difference that actually makes, since, as I understand it, a motion made by a board, as part of a report, carries the same "weight" as a motion made by an individual during new business.

[Josh Martin]

I've since explained to them that, when they do it this way, the member making the motion is acting as an individual member, and not as the board. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong in that statement.) I've added the caveat that I don't know what difference that actually makes, since, as I understand it, a motion made by a board, as part of a report, carries the same "weight" as a motion made by an individual during new business.

As a technical point, it would be more correct to say that the member in this case is not acting on behalf of the board. The board can only act as the board at a board meeting.

It's true, however, that this makes little difference. In the general case, the only parliamentary difference is that a motion from a board or committee of more than one member does not require a second.

[Guest Edgar]

As a technical point, it would be more correct to say that the member in this case is not acting on behalf of the board. The board can only act as the board at a board meeting.

Mightn't there be a not that should not be there?

[Josh Martin]

Mightn't there be a not that should not be there?

No, I think I have it right, although it's quite possible I could have worded it more clearly. Mr. Sullo said that when a member makes the motion separately from the report, the member is "acting as an individual member, not as the board." My point is that it would be more correct to say that the member is "acting as an individual member, not on behalf of the board." The other wording suggests that the member would be acting "as the board" if he made the motion right after the report, which is not the case.

[Guest Edgar]

No, I think I have it right . . .

Okay, but I would have thought that the reporting member was acting (albeit as an individual member) on behalf of the board (hence no need for a second). If, as you say, he's not acting on behalf of the board, is it just a coincidence that the motion he's making is the exact same motion the board had agreed to propose?

[Josh Martin]

Okay, but I would have thought that the reporting member was acting (albeit as an individual member) on behalf of the board (hence no need for a second). If, as you say, he's not acting on behalf of the board, is it just a coincidence that the motion he's making is the exact same motion the board had agreed to propose?

Let's make sure we're on the same page here. Certainly if the member makes a report and follows it up with the appropriate motion, the member is acting on behalf of the board and no second is required.

Mr. Sullo's comment was about how to handle the situation if the reporting member makes the report, sits back down, and then waits until New Business to make a motion. I think the key question is whether he is still acting as the "reporting member" at that point.

[Guest Edgar]

Let's make sure we're on the same page here.

You're quite right. We weren't. Sorry about that.

[BryanSullo]

Is this principle--that the board does not exist/operate-as-a-board outside of board meetings--spelled out somewhere in RONR? I'd love to be able to quote chapter and verse.

[Dan Honemann]

Is this principle--that the board does not exist/operate-as-a-board outside of board meetings--spelled out somewhere in RONR? I'd love to be able to quote chapter and verse.

How about the paragraph that begins on page 486, line 29?

[BryanSullo]

It's becoming clearer. To my interpretation, that paragraph states that the board cannot deliberate outside a board meeting, but it doesn't say to me that the board only exists during board meetings. Surely, each board member retains the executive powers that are granted by way of being a board member, whether in a board meeting or not.

This does bring up another question though: If a board chairman presents a report at a general assembly, and a member asks for clarification of a particular point, or asks a question about a subject not covered, under what authority can the reporting member answer the question, since the board does not have a chance to convene and deliberate about it?

[Guest Edgar]

Surely, each board member retains the executive powers that are granted by way of being a board member, whether in a board meeting or not.

Sure, but I think it's unusual for individual board members, absent holding another office, to have any individual authority. They're usually generic peas in a pod.

If a board chairman presents a report at a general assembly, and a member asks for clarification of a particular point, or asks a question about a subject not covered, under what authority can the reporting member answer the question, since the board does not have a chance to convene and deliberate about it?

I suppose he could answer to the extent that he feels authorized (by the board) to do so. But he should probably tread very carefully on this thin ice. But stay tuned 'cause I think I may be on thin ice here too.

By the way, though some of us used to say (mostly, I think, because it sounded dramatic) that the board doesn't "exist" outside of a properly called (or scheduled) board meeting, it's better to simply say that the board can't act as a board except at a meeting of the board.

[Josh Martin]

Surely, each board member retains the executive powers that are granted by way of being a board member, whether in a board meeting or not.

Of course, if the society's rules grant any such powers. RONR doesn't.

This does bring up another question though: If a board chairman presents a report at a general assembly, and a member asks for clarification of a particular point, or asks a question about a subject not covered, under what authority can the reporting member answer the question, since the board does not have a chance to convene and deliberate about it?

Firstly, I'll note that in the general case the board chairman probably should not be presenting the report to the assembly, since he will usually also be the presiding officer of the general assembly (although I realize this is not the case in your organization).

As to answering the question, the board member will be answering as an individual member of the board, and if it's a particularly contentious point it might be wise for him to state that so people don't get the wrong idea. The board member is still free to answer the question unless the question is about the deliberations of the board (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 528, lines 8-11).

[BryanSullo]

Thank you both.