Second Motion on Nominations

[Guest Richard C Jessee]

At the previous meeting of the city Council and Mayor announced his nomination for appointment to the Morristown utilities commission. The mayor followed with a motion to approve that nominee, the motion failing for lack of the second. A council member then made a motion to reject the nominee, and that motion carried.

The issue is  whether the motion made by the council member  was proper to get a vote on rejection of the nominee.  I understand that the council member could have seconded the mayor’s motion and then voted against the nominee.

[Edgar Guest]

The issue is  whether the motion made by the council member  was proper to get a vote on rejection of the nominee.

 

A motion to not do something is not proper.

Seconds are not required at meetings of "small" board (where not more that about a dozen members are present).

If this was an election and a ballot vote was not required by your rules, and if there was only one nominee, then the chair can declare the sole nominee elected "by acclamation". The only way to vote "against" a candidate is to vote for someone else.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I will say, tentatively, that I think the motion to reject the nominee was superfluous.  Assuming -- dangerously -- that seconding a nomination is required by your council -- which RONR does not require --I then think that this nominee was shot down by the failure to receive a second. 

 

We must bear in mind that your city council might well have adopted some rules of its own, which will supersede whatever Robert's Rules has to say.

 

But if we assume that seconding is not required in your city council, then I think the motion to reject the nominee was not just superfluous (I think while I type, which is partly why it take so long), but, yes, out of order, because there was already a main motion pending -- that is, to approve the nominee.  So the way to effect the rejection of the nominee was, yes, to simply vote him down.

[Edgar Guest]

I will say, tentatively, that I think the motion to reject the nominee was superfluous.  Assuming -- dangerously -- that seconding a nomination is required by your council -- which RONR does not require --I then think that this nominee was shot down by the failure to receive a second.

What failed to receive a second (as I read it) was the motion to approve (elect?) the nominee, not the nomination itself.

 

So the way to effect the rejection of the nominee was, yes, to simply vote him down.

 

Huh?

[Timothy]

I will say, tentatively, that I think the motion to reject the nominee was superfluous.  Assuming -- dangerously -- that seconding a nomination is required by your council -- which RONR does not require --I then think that this nominee was shot down by the failure to receive a second. 

 

While we're assuming stuff that we haven't been told, why don't we assume that the Mayor is the only person who can nominate someone, but the council must either approve or reject the nominee. Because the motion to approve the nominee failed, they made a motion to reject the nominee, which was adopted. So, even though none of this is what RONR would've told them to do, we might as well assume that they did it exactly the way they should have.

[Guest Marcy]

I am wondering if I can pose this question here? Through our organization we conduct email communication. We recently had proposed to us a motion that was seconded and requested to vote by a deadline. First question, does there not have to be discussion after a motion? Second question: is it assumed that the person who made the motion and the seconder automatically are voting yes? This is how it was taken. I disagree. As if there is discussion after the motion, would there not be the possibility that either of these parties may then vote no? Rather than assume they are a yes vote?

[Gary c Tesser]

I am wondering if I can pose this question here? ...

 

Actually it would be better (and welcome) if you posted this, your similar or related question, as a new topic thread, please.  This forum works best that way.

 

[Added:]

However, you of course can pose your question here, and you have.  Tell you what.  I'll keep an eye out for a new topic thread from you, asking this question (or any other, or others).  If, in a few hours, that new thread has not appeared, I'll assume you did have a problem posting the question anew (imagine, having difficulties with the computer, or the Internet.  And here in the late 20th Century, when you'd expect such impediments would be a thing of the past), and take a stab at it here.  (Guest Marcy, that seems fair and reasonable to me; you agree?)