Mayor

[Guest Duane Fischer]

Can a motion be voted on without a second?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Yes.

Once a motion has been processed (i.e., moved, debated, amended, etc.), then once you get to the voting phase, the relevance of a second (or lack thereof) drops to absolute zero.

The time to object to a lack of second is

(a.) prior to the start of debate (if the motion is debatable), or

(b.) prior to the first amendment (if the motion is amendable).

[Richard Brown]

Yes. But there are a few caveats/exceptions. More information about the specific situation will be helpful.

Seconds are not required in small boards and committees. Seconds are required in most regular assemblies, but once debate or voting starts, the lack of a second is waived and becomes immaterial.

[Gary c Tesser]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

the lack of a second is waived and becomes immaterial

I've often wondered, what's the difference between this and the simple application of the fundamental principle that (except for Page  251 and some of its friends) points of order must be timely?

___________

N. B.  Just kidding about the "fundamental principle" wording.

[Dan Honemann]

33 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I've often wondered, what's the difference between this and the simple application of the fundamental principle that (except for Page  251 and some of its friends) points of order must be timely?

___________

N. B.  Just kidding about the "fundamental principle" wording.

Well, you must have noticed that the chair's stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded is used on page 250 (and there you are all the way up to page 251) as a shining example of an instance in which a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

And don't think you're kidding us into thinking that you don't already know that all points of order must be timely, even in instances where the breach is one of those mentioned on page 251. We're on to you and your little tricks.

 

[George Mervosh]

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

And don't think you're kidding us into thinking that you don't already know that all points of order must be timely, even in instances where the breach is one of those mentioned on page 251. We're on to you and your little tricks.

This is going to send him and Fluffy into a tizzy.  Expect a 3:30 AM response.  

[Gary c Tesser]

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

the chair's stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded is used on page 250 (and there you are all the way up to page 251) [is] a shining example of an instance in which a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.

So is it that the untimeliness -- the PoO's not being raised promptly in most instances, like this one, in which it needs to be -- waives it, so that the breach becomes immaterial?

(George you perv leave my girlfriend out of it, and none of your business what we're doing at 3:30 AM!)

[Dan Honemann]

12 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

So is it that the untimeliness -- the PoO's not being raised promptly in most instances, like this one, in which it needs to be -- waives it, so that the breach becomes immaterial?

Yeah, " becomes immaterial" is a good way to put it. 

"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." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 37, ll. 9-12):

[Gary c Tesser]

Ouch

[Gary c Tesser]

OK ... I'm gonna keep dragging.

[Gary c Tesser]

So ... is there any reason that the the admirable, exemplary, dare we say 'iconic', wording "becomes immaterial" does not appear there on p. 250 -- or, for that matter, in Section 23, at all (besides maintaining Robert's Rules's legendary reputation for its traditionally laconic style)?

[Dan Honemann]

6 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

So ... is there any reason that the the admirable, exemplary, dare we say 'iconic', wording "becomes immaterial" does not appear there on p. 250 -- or, for that matter, in Section 23, at all (besides maintaining Robert's Rules's legendary reputation for its traditionally laconic style)?

Probably not.

[Gary c Tesser]

But it is in fact fundamentally implicit, even intrinsic?