Motion made to not adopt Robert Rules of Order - no 2nd received - how do you proceed

[Guest dee lindgrain]

Motion made to NOT adopt Robert rules of Order - no 2nd received - how do you proceed?

[Gary c Tesser]

As with an [edit:  any] other main motion that received no second.  You shrug, and go on to the next item of business. 

 

Like if your organization is a volunteer fire department, and somebody made a motion to NOT repair the sorely damaged fire truck, and it received no second.  You would shrug and go on, with the assembly, as the minutes should record, having declined to NOT repair the truck.

 

Like if you're a local branch of the American Kennel Club and some of you are figuring to enter your dogs in the annual dog show, but the treasury is low, and some members are figuring you just can't afford the registration fee this year, so one of you moves to NOT pay the registration fee, and the motion receives no second.  So you move on, the assembly having decided not to NOT pay the registration fee.

 

Like if your organization is a filthy gang of cutthroat merciless biker-gang outlaw brigands like mine and you're sitting around the campfire eating each others' legs and bivalves, and a couple of the guys are mumbling about we go roaring through the nearby town on our six-cylinder bicuspids, terrorizing the townsfolk, eating their poodles and jewelry; so one of you guys, too drunk already to even find his hog let alone start it and never any ambitious in the first place, moves -- oh, of course, being sure a quorum is present -- to NOT go roaring and terrorizing and eating &c.  And his motion gets no second.  So the presiding officer (called "Killer" in the bylaws) shrugs and declares that, since there is no second, the motion is not before the meeting (RONR, 11th Ed.;, p. 35 - 36); the assembly (called "murderous thugs" in the bylaws) thereby not having chosen to NOT ride through the town, eating &c.

 

Now, it should be made clear that, unlike in the above examples, the motion to NOT adopt Robert's Rules of Order is kind of a dopey idea, and I'm relieved that it received no second.  Perhaps in a little bit someone will toodle along with an idea of how to proceed.

 

[Edited to correct 3rd word typo:  "an" --> "any"]

[jstackpo]

One procedural  step is to hearken to our mantra here:  "Check the bylaws".

 

They may specify that  RONR is your parliamentary authority, and it isn't proper to suspend that.

[Richard Brown]

Motion made to NOT adopt Robert rules of Order - no 2nd received - how do you proceed?

 

 

One procedural  step is to hearken to our mantra here:  "Check the bylaws".

 

They may specify that  RONR is your parliamentary authority, and it isn't proper to suspend that.

And motions stated in the negative are almost always a good bad idea.... for just the reason guest Dee brought up.  The motion was to NOT adopt RONR, but the motion failed for lack of a second.   That does not mean that the assembly therefore DOES adopt RONR.... it just means that the status quo remains, but many people don't understand that and it causes so many problems that it is a bad idea.

 

If it wasn't the middle of the night, I could probably come up with better examples of why it's a bad idea.

 

Edited to change the first sentence from "motions stated in the negative are almost always a good idea" to "motions stated in the negative are almost always a BAD idea".   That's what I get for posting when I wake up in the middle of the night.  Thanks to Gary Tesser for catching my sleepy mistake!  I'll blame it on the Sudafed that was keeping me from sleeping.

[Gary c Tesser]

And motions stated in the negative are almost always a good idea.... for just the reason guest Dee brought up... and it causes so many problems that it is a bad idea.

 

If it wasn't the middle of the night, I could probably come up with better examples of why it's a bad idea.

 

And if it weren't the middle of the night, Mr Brown could probably come up with better ways to tell you why it's a bad idea than to start by telling you it's a good idea.

 

By the time he wakes up, which we usually call Thursday, he'll tell you why he agrees or not.

[Guest dee lindgrain]

Thank you.    Each year we re-adopt Robert's Rules of Order.   We have one member who does not wish to do so and if she is first to make the motion - I'm fairly confident, the others will not second it.   I just wasn't sure - because it initially failed for lack of a second, if procedurally someone else could come back and make another motion to approve Robert's Rules of Order; and/or if we simply move on with no parlimentary procedures in place.   So appears you have answered my question - we move on.  Thanks again

[Edgar Guest]

Each year we re-adopt Robert's Rules of Order.

 

Stop doing that. Once is enough. Better yet, add it to your bylaws. Click here.

[Gary c Tesser]

Ms lindgrain, wait please come back!

 

(For the love of ghd what have I done.)

[Gary c Tesser]

Ms lindgrain, I was somewhat kidding!

[Gary c Tesser]

(Ghod, I hate this time of day, between meds and when they kick in.)

[Dan Honemann]

Like if you're a local branch of the American Kennel Club and some of you are figuring to enter your dogs in the annual dog show, but the treasury is low, and some members are figuring you just can't afford the registration fee this year, so one of you moves to NOT pay the registration fee, and the motion receives no second.  So you move on, the assembly having decided not to NOT pay the registration fee.

 

It would help to be a bit more careful with these examples.

 

When a motion dies for lack of a second, the assembly hasn't decided not to do whatever it is that the motion proposes. It hasn't actually decided anything. It has simply refused to entertain the motion at that time.

[Gary c Tesser]

Ms. lindgrain.  Kindly forgive my overnight excesses, to what ever extent their purpose, which was to inform as well as to amuse, failed.

 

Square business now.  This, your, situation is so problematical.  Note that Edgar Guest's comment and suggestion are, I think, the best you can do. 

 

But it's hard to tell what your current situation is.  I don't think "move on" says it.

 

Here's maybe a couple of start questions.

1.  What does your organization do about its meetings' procedures if it doesn't re-adopt Robert's Rules?

 

(If that has never bothered to come up, just say so:  we can deal with that..)

 

2.  What, if anything, do your bylaws say about anything resembling a parliamentary authority, or a rulebook or set of guidelines, under which the meetings are to be conducted?

 

Bottom line, the rejection of the negatively-worded proposal leaves you sort of nowhere.  (Maybe that's the answer to my quertion #1, above.)

 

I will say, that, looking here:

 

...   I just wasn't sure - because it initially failed for lack of a second, if procedurally someone else could come back and make another motion to approve Robert's Rules of Order; and/or if we simply move on with no parlimentary procedures in place...  .

 

 

I'm pretty sure you're on safe ground (RONR, 11th Edition, p 111, item 2) to go ahead and move to adopt RONR (or "Robert's Rules of Order," if that's what you want to call it, and you're also on safe ground there, although less precise) for the coming year, and that this is not impeded in any way by ... lemme see, again .. the lack of a second to a motion to NOT do something.

 

(I have put some thought into this, so, Ms lindgrain, please reply so as to let me know  whether what I have written here makes any sense to you.)

[Richard Brown]

And if it weren't the middle of the night, Mr Brown could probably come up with better ways to tell you why it's a bad idea than to start by telling you it's a good idea.

 

By the time he wakes up, which we usually call Thursday, he'll tell you why he agrees or not.

Oh, good Lord!!   I did say that!   Thank you, Gary!!!   Yes, I absolutely meant to say that "motions stated in the negative are almost always a BAD idea"!!!!!    

 

And I agree with Mr. Guest when he asks why you do this every year.  Once should be enough.  A motion of that sort remains binding and in effect until rescinded or amended.... unless the motions are specifying that their duration is limited to one year.  You don't have to do it every year.

 

And, as Mr. Guest suggested, put it in your bylaws.

[Gary c Tesser]

It would help to be a bit more careful with these examples.

 

When a motion dies for lack of a second, the assembly hasn't decided not to do whatever it is that the motion proposes. It hasn't actually decided anything. It has simply refused to entertain the motion at that time.

 

Thank you.  I was writing with a cringing feeling that I might be missing something, but if Ms lindgrain needed something by 5 AM, I should boldly venture forth.  Bloody bet this dang nuance will be on my RP test.