dies for lack of a second

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Under what circumstance will a motion,

which dies for lack of a second,

"bring business before the assembly"?

 

[George Mervosh]

Under what circumstance will a motion,

which dies for lack of a second,

"bring business before the assembly"?

 

8 years later and still refuse to believe it, eh?  http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_7

[Gary Novosielski]

Under what circumstance will a motion,

which dies for lack of a second,

"bring business before the assembly"?

Umm, none?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Thanks for responding.

(Aww! George remembers!)

(You know this thread will likely be deleted in a few -- uh -- minutes.)

 

THE STATING OF THE QUESTION BY THE CHAIR.
When a motion that is in order has been made and seconded,

the chair formally places it before the assembly

by stating the question; that is, he states the exact motion

and indicates that it is open to debate (and certain other

parliamentary processes to be explain in 5 and 6)

in the manner indicated below as appropriate to the case:

[RONR 11th edition, page 37, Section 4 “The Handling of a Motion”]
 

Just to celebrate 8 years of controversy, let me indulge.

 

Under what circumstances will a motion,

which is unseconded,

"be placed before the assembly"?

 

"I can hear the old clock ticking . . ." [traditional song]

[Bruce Lages]

Certainly that unseconded motion will be before the assembly if debate begins without a second being made, but that's certainly not the same question as when a motion which dies for lack of a second is placed before the assembly

[Richard Brown]

Umm, none?

Makes sense to me. . . . 

[Gary Novosielski]

Thanks for responding.

(Aww! George remembers!)

(You know this thread will likely be deleted in a few -- uh -- minutes.)

Just to celebrate 8 years of controversy, let me indulge.

 

Under what circumstances will a motion,

which is unseconded,

"be placed before the assembly"?

 

"I can hear the old clock ticking . . ." [traditional song]

 

Yeah, that's a different question.  That would be when the chair states the motion (lack of second notwithstanding), or when someone begins to discuss the motion (lack of stating the motion notwithstanding).

[Dan Honemann]

(You know this thread will likely be deleted in a few -- uh -- minutes.)

 

 

I suppose you are referring to the fact that, as noted on this Forum's Introductory Page:

 

" ... the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove ... any postings deemed by them to be sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous or misleading to warrant such action."

 

If you don't post anything really stupid you'll be okay.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Thank you, DHH.

 

I think if I get it out of my system every 8 years, I'll be okay.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The basic form of motion ― the only one whose introduction brings business before the assembly ― is a main motion.

There are also many other separate parliamentary motions that have evolved for specific purposes.

While all of these motions propose some form of action and while all of them are said to be brought “before the assembly” when they are placed under consideration,

most of them do not bring business before it in the sense described above ― as a main motion does. 

Many of these motions involve procedural steps relating to a main motion already being considered.

[RONR page 27, Section 3 “Basic Provision and Procedures”]

 

Two terms of interest:

(a.) placed under consideration

(b.) before the assembly

 

True or false:

When a motion has been "placed under consideration", then that motion is considered to be "before the assembly" at that point?

 

That is,

"Is there any case where one motion, at a given point in time, will be one status but not the other status?"

 

In other words,

Can a motion be "before the assembly" but which has never suffered "being placed under consideration"?

 

(Please assume the given motion in a state of being on the floor, and either being the immediate pending question, or a nested pending question. Granted, if a POSTPONEMENT occurs or a REFERRAL occurs, then the status is different, as the motion is off the floor in those cases.)

 

Specific example:

At 8:01 p.m., if a motion is "placed under consideration", it is the case that, at 8:01 p.m., that same motion can possibly be not "before the assembly"?

And does it work the other way?

At 9:33 p.m., if a motion is "before the assembly," (by whatever means) then is it possible that at 9:33 p.m., that same motion is not been "placed under consideration"?

 

How tight are these two terms? Are they splittable?

Can they be seen separately? Can they be triggered separately?

[Josh Martin]

Two terms of interest:

(a.) placed under consideration

(b.) before the assembly

 

True or false:

When a motion has been "placed under consideration", then that motion is considered to be "before the assembly" at that point?

 

That is,

"Is there any case where one motion, at a given point in time, will be one status but not the other status?"

 

In other words,

Can a motion be "before the assembly" but which has never suffered "being placed under consideration"?

 

(Please assume the given motion in a state of being on the floor, and either being the immediate pending question, or a nested pending question. Granted, if a POSTPONEMENT occurs or a REFERRAL occurs, then the status is different, as the motion is off the floor in those cases.)

 

Specific example:

At 8:01 p.m., if a motion is "placed under consideration", it is the case that, at 8:01 p.m., that same motion can possibly be not "before the assembly"?

And does it work the other way?

At 9:33 p.m., if a motion is "before the assembly," (by whatever means) then is it possible that at 9:33 p.m., that same motion is not been "placed under consideration"?

 

How tight are these two terms? Are they splittable?

Can they be seen separately? Can they be triggered separately?

 

If a motion is placed under consideration, the motion is then before the assembly, although various events may cause the motion to no longer be before the assembly (as you note). A motion which is placed under consideration always comes before the assembly. Likewise, it is not possible for a motion to be before the assembly without the motion having been placed under consideration.

 

But none of this has anything to do with whether a main motion should be recorded in the minutes.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Here are some convenient references,

and RONR definitions:

 

***

MOTION = A motion is a formal proposal by a member, in a meeting, that the assembly take certain action. [p. 27 Section 3]

MAIN MOTION = A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly.  [p. 62 Section 6]

***

Page 27 Section 3 goes on about Main Motions:

The basic form of motion ―

the only one whose introduction brings business before the assembly ―

is a main motion.
There are also many other separate parliamentary motions

that have evolved for specific purposes.
While all of these motions propose some form of action and

while all of them are said to be brought “before the assembly”

when they are placed under consideration,

most of them do not bring business before it

in the sense described above ― as a main motion does.

***

 

Note the exclusivity:

Only one class of motion exists whose introduction brings business before the assembly,

and that class is the main motion.

 

The other parliamentary motions which exist, if they do "bring business before the assembly",

they do so via their adoption,

and not via their introduction.

 

Thus for example:

 

• Take From the Table - you must adopt TFTT from the table to place before the assembly its main motion.

(Its introduction is not sufficient.)

 

• Discharge a Committee -- you must adopt DAC to place before the assembly the main motion which was referred.

(Its introduction is not sufficient.)

(There is an exceptional case for DAC, namely, depending on how the committee got is charge, there may be no main motion left to entertain. See pages 313-314 for the many cases of diposition.)

 

***

 

So, depending on the class of motion,

business may be brought before the assembly

either by a motion's

• introduction, or

• adoption

 

***

 

This post is just so quick look-ups of key words may be done, or cut-and-paste of text may be done.