Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Need for a seconder


Guest Jim

Recommended Posts

Notice of motion is given, by a mover and seconder, for a proposal submitted for consideration at the next meeting. The item is placed on the draft agenda.

At the next meeting, the agenda (which includes the motion in question) is approved by the assembly.

When the order of business reaches this motion, the chair rules that by virtue of the seconder not now being present (whether having been unable to attend the meeting, or whether on account of having stepped out of the room) the motion cannot be put to the assembly without first obtaining a new seconder.

I would have thought that the assembly's prior approval of the agenda constituted its agreement that the listed business come before the assembly and that, on that basis, no new seconder is needed.

I would not think that just because no one now present, save the mover, is interested in the proposal is a basis to force it to fall to the ground.

Is it correct to contend that on being taken up by the chair, the motion should be put to the assembly for deliberation at which point the mover should be invited to speak to his motion, after which any member of the assembly (including the mover) may propose anything from laying it on the table (pending possible return of the seconder) all the way to postponing it indefinitely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice of motion is given, by a mover and seconder, for a proposal submitted for consideration at the next meeting. The item is placed on the draft agenda.

This notion that notice of a motion is something that must be seconded may be the root of the problem. Previous notice is not something that gets seconded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice of motion is given, by a mover and seconder, for a proposal submitted for consideration at the next meeting. The item is placed on the draft agenda.

At the next meeting, the agenda (which includes the motion in question) is approved by the assembly.

When the order of business reaches this motion, the chair rules that by virtue of the seconder not now being present (whether having been unable to attend the meeting, or whether on account of having stepped out of the room) the motion cannot be put to the assembly without first obtaining a new seconder.

I would have thought that the assembly's prior approval of the agenda constituted its agreement that the listed business come before the assembly and that, on that basis, no new seconder is needed.

I would not think that just because no one now present, save the mover, is interested in the proposal is a basis to force it to fall to the ground.

Is it correct to contend that on being taken up by the chair, the motion should be put to the assembly for deliberation at which point the mover should be invited to speak to his motion, after which any member of the assembly (including the mover) may propose anything from laying it on the table (pending possible return of the seconder) all the way to postponing it indefinitely?

No, it is not correct to contend that. The chair is correct that a second is required. By placing it on the agenda the assembly has made it a general order (or possibly a special order) for that time, but that does not necessarily indicate that the assembly wishes to consider the proposal - it probably simply indicates that members don't pay enough attention to what's on the draft agenda. If no member present except the motion maker wishes to consider the proposal, it should indeed fall to the ground.

A motion which dies for lack of a second has not come before the assembly, so the motion could be made again under New Business if the seconder returns, or if someone else decides he is interested in considering the motion after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for resolving the above on its own merits.

Over and above RONR, there can be argued to exist, among directors of a board, a fiduciary duty making it incumbent on each and any who would have a concern to be able to have that concern considered by the other directors. Ideally, the society might resolve a special rule of order, granting that any director be able to be assigned the floor of a board meeting to present a concern without requirement of a seconder, even on a board of size larger than about twelve.

Absent such provision, what methods would be in order to seek to get a concern on the record, even in the circumstance where the remainder of those present among the board preferred otherwise?

1. In case the inability to find a second owed itself to the specifics of the motion rather than any unwillingness to enter into exploration of the concerns that had given rise to it, would it be in order for me to move -- and for the board to consider informally or go into committee of the whole -- to consider the subject at issue without having to have, on the floor, a particular motion?

2. If the above would be out of order, or failed to be supported, can rising on a point of privilege (personal or good of the order) to "discuss concerns pertaining to X" achieve, even if denied permission to elaborate, to have minuted that the request had been made and permission denied?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absent such provision, what methods would be in order to seek to get a concern on the record, even in the circumstance where the remainder of those present among the board preferred otherwise?

A motion which dies for lack of a second is still recorded in the minutes, so it will be on the record. See Official Interpretation 2006-7.

1. In case the inability to find a second owed itself to the specifics of the motion rather than any unwillingness to enter into exploration of the concerns that had given rise to it, would it be in order for me to move -- and for the board to consider informally or go into committee of the whole -- to consider the subject at issue without having to have, on the floor, a particular motion?

Partially yes. Committee of the Whole could be used to discuss a subject, but you need a pending motion for Informal Consideration.

2. If the above would be out of order, or failed to be supported, can rising on a point of privilege (personal or good of the order) to "discuss concerns pertaining to X" achieve, even if denied permission to elaborate, to have minuted that the request had been made and permission denied?

No, this would not be a proper point of privilege. If the goal is simply to get this recorded in the minutes, however, such steps are unnecessary. A motion which dies for lack of a second is recorded in the minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...