Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Guest Biff

Recommended Posts

In a meeting recently to discuss a decision of the presiding members: A motion was made to present an issue in which to be voted. The presiding chair asked if there was someone who would second the motion. Dead silence.

 

After a very uncomfortable minute and a half - the chair presented the option to vote secret ballot. This change seemed to appease all who were present, but can anyone tell me if this is acceptable protocol?

 

If no one seconds the motion - is it permissible to change the voting format in this fashion in order to secure a vote?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a meeting recently to discuss a decision of the presiding members: A motion was made to present an issue in which to be voted. The presiding chair asked if there was someone who would second the motion. Dead silence.

 

After a very uncomfortable minute and a half - the chair presented the option to vote secret ballot. This change seemed to appease all who were present, but can anyone tell me if this is acceptable protocol?

 

If no one seconds the motion - is it permissible to change the voting format in this fashion in order to secure a vote?

 

In my opinion the chair waited far too long to state the motion died for the lack of a second. 

 

Also RONR notes "A member who believes that a secret vote will give a truer expression of the assembly's will on a pending motion can move that the vote on the motion be taken by ballot.:  RONR (11th ed.), p. 285  However that's usually done by a member, not the chair, and a vote is taken on the moton to vote by ballot.  Also, this doesn't occur until the motion is seconded and placed before the assembly for consideration.

 

In this case the chair made some mistakes but it's too late now to do anything about it except getting it right next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition, here are some relevant citations:

 

"The requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether he should state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly's having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced." (RONR 11th ed., p. 36, ll. 26-31)

 

"After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded - even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement - the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion's adoption." (p. 37, ll. 9-16)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you gentlemen - this was my suspicion, but I wanted clarification. Just a bit of background: a majority of members had expressed their intent leading up to the meeting, so there was a general consensus of how most members were planning to vote.

 

However, that being said - as best I can tell members got "stage fright" when in came down to the actual vote (because it was a very serious matter) and clammed up when it came to second the motion. Very odd. The chair could sense this and (I believe) changed the order to assist with the awkwardness. The ballot passed overwhelmingly with only one "no."

 

I believe the will of the members was able to be accomplished by the change, never-the less - it did appear out of protocol from my viewpoint. I guess the important thing is that the will of the members was acted upon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if this was a meeting of a small board (not more than about a dozen members), a second wouldn't have been required at all.

Mr. Guest said what I was about to say.  See pages 487-488 of RONR for a discussion of the rules for small boards.

 

However, if this was at a meeting of the general membership, no matter how small, the "small board rules" would not apply unless the membership has adopted a motion or rule to use the "small board rules".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, that being said - as best I can tell members got "stage fright" when in came down to the actual vote (because it was a very serious matter) and clammed up when it came to second the motion. Very odd. The chair could sense this and (I believe) changed the order to assist with the awkwardness. The ballot passed overwhelmingly with only one "no."

If this sort of situation arises again, perhaps the chair should point out that seconding a motion is not an indication of support of the motion.  The second means simply that the seconder believes it is a matter that the assembly should be able to vote on.   The  person who seconds a motion is sometimes actually opposed to the motion but wants a vote on it because he believes it will be defeated. 

 

On page 36 of RONR, re seconding a motion, it says:

 

"A second merely implies that the seconder agrees that the motion should come before the meeting and not that he necessarily favors the motion. A member may second a motion (even if using the word "support" as indicated above) because he would like to see the assembly go on record as rejecting the proposal, if he believes a vote on the motion would have such a result."

 

Edited to add:  Also, the name of the person who seconds a motion does not go in the minutes unless your organization has adopted a rule or custom to include it.  From page 470 of RONR:  "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...