Can President make or second motions?

[Guest Carmen J. Daccurso]

Roberts ... clearly states that the chair may not make motions.  Is seconding a motion by the chair allowed?  Our president claims that the rules only apply to large boards of 15 or more and do not apply to our board which has five members.

[Edgar Guest]

Roberts ... clearly states that the chair may not make motions.

No, it doesn't. What it does say is that, in most many situations, the presiding officer should maintain the appearance of impartiality by not exercising his right, as a member, to make motions, second motions, speak in debate, and vote. But he still retains those rights.

 

Under the "relaxed" rules that apply to meetings of small boards (those with not more than about a dozen members), the presiding officer is free to participate fully.

 

See also FAQ #1.

 

By the way, seconds aren't required at meetings of small boards.

[Gary Novosielski]

Roberts ... clearly states that the chair may not make motions.

 

Really?  Where?  That's news to me.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Really?  Where?  That's news to me.

 

Page 394. See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2007_1

[Edgar Guest]

Page 394. See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2007_1

 

Are you saying that "precludes" means "prohibits"?

 

That's what the Official Interpretation seems to say but I'm not convinced.

 

I don't know how, on the one hand, it can be said that the chair, as a member, has the right to make a motion but, on the other hand, he can't exercise that right. That ain't right.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Are you saying that "precludes" means "prohibits"?

 

That's what the Official Interpretation seems to say but I'm not convinced.

 

I don't know how, on the one hand, it can be said that the chair, as a member, has the right to make a motion but, on the other hand, he can't exercise that right. That ain't right.

 

The member who is the regular presiding officer has the same rights as any other member, but he can't fulfill his duty to preside while exercising those rights at the same time. At any given time, he must choose to do (at most) one or the other.

[Edgar Guest]

At any given time, he must choose to do (at most) one or the other.

 

I think he should choose but I don't think he must choose.

[Shmuel Gerber]

"To participate in debate, [the presiding officer] must relinquish the chair; and in such a case he should turn the chair over . . ." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 395, ll. 1-2).

[Gary Novosielski]

"To participate in debate, [the presiding officer] must relinquish the chair; and in such a case he should turn the chair over . . ." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 395, ll. 1-2).

 

 Once again RONR says should, not must.

 

 

But Mr. Gerber is quite correct that OI 2007-1   ASSUMPTION OF MOTIONS BY THE CHAIR clearly says "This means that the chair may not make or second motions."

 

And that sounds like a prohibition.  So is the OI going a little bit overboard in saying "may not", or is it true that the chair must turn over the duty of presiding?

 

Have we  been misinforming people by not pointing out that the chair has rights which he is prohibited from exercising?

[Dan Honemann]

"To participate in debate, [the presiding officer] must relinquish the chair; and in such a case he should turn the chair over . . ." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 395, ll. 1-2).

 

 

 Once again RONR says should, not must.

 

Yeah, after having first said must.

[George Mervosh]

If we never have a should/must debate again it will be too soon.  

[Dan Honemann]

If we never have a should/must debate again it will be too soon.  

 

I can assure you, I have gone to great lengths to avoid any more of them.

[George Mervosh]

I can assure you, I have gone to great lengths to avoid any more of them.

 

Oh I know.  I still remember:  "You should not place your hand on a hot stove."   The "must-ers" can feel free to do so.  

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay, let's put it this way:  if the chair makes a motion and a member raises a point of order that the chair must not make motions, should that point be ruled well taken?

[Josh Martin]

Okay, let's put it this way: if the chair makes a motion and a member raises a point of order that the chair must not make motions, should that point be ruled well taken?

If the chairman of an assembly other than a small board or committee makes a motion without first relinquishing the chair, the point should be ruled well taken and the chairman should promptly relinquish the chair in order to make the desired motion.

It is correct that the chairman, if a member, has the right to make motions and it is also correct that the chairman must not make motions while presiding. The way to avoid a conflict between these rules is for the chairman to relinquish the chair before making a motion.

If the chairman refuses to do so and forces a conflict, then the chairman's rights as a member must win out, since a member cannot be deprived of his rights except through disciplinary proceedings. The chairman has nonetheless violated the rules on this subject and has undermined his appearance of impartiality, and if he persists in such behavior he should not expect to be chairman for very long.

[SaintCad]

"To participate in debate, [the presiding officer] must relinquish the chair; and in such a case he should turn the chair over . . ." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 395, ll. 1-2).

And that is a cite that he cannot make a motion?

[George Mervosh]

And that is a cite that he cannot make a motion?

 

Read a bit further back on p. 394, and continue to Mr. Gerber's cited lines.  Did you read the authorship team's explanation of what those rules mean in http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2007_1   to basically the exact same language that's in the 11th ed.?

 

Mr. Gerber will be by later, I'm sure, to add whatever is missing.

[Shmuel Gerber]

And that is a cite that he cannot make a motion?

 

Nah, it's just a random passage that contains both the word "should" and the word "must" so that we could discuss that topic.

[SaintCad]

Read a bit further back on p. 394, and continue to Mr. Gerber's cited lines.  Did you read the authorship team's explanation of what those rules mean in http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2007_1   to basically the exact same language that's in the 11th ed.?

 

Mr. Gerber will be by later, I'm sure, to add whatever is missing.

I'm not arguing that point.  I think it is clear that a chair/member has full membership rights but must exercise them "as an individual" (p 394) and not as the chair.  I was just questioning Mr. Gerber as to if that particular quote pertained to making a motion since it talking about debate.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I'm not arguing that point.  I think it is clear that a chair/member has full membership rights but must exercise them "as an individual" (p 394) and not as the chair.  I was just questioning Mr. Gerber as to if that particular quote pertained to making a motion since it talking about debate.

 

Perhaps the authorship team will do a better job in the next edition of more clearly incorporating the stricture that the presiding officer, except in committees and small boards, does not make or second motions while presiding, but meanwhile the Official Interpretation will have to suffice. This rule can also be inferred from the last bullet point on page 488 and the second footnote on the same page.

I think most people also understand that the rules given in Section 4 for handling a motion would make little sense if they were to be applied to the chairman's making of a motion while presiding. We would have the chair addressing himself, recognizing himself, having the right to speak first in debate, etc. In general, in cases where the chair is fully permitted to avail himself or herself of the usual rights of membership while presiding, the book specifically says so.