No vote taken...So?

[Guest Confused in Cranston]

Pretty simple question:  My organization does not closely adhere to Robert's Rules of Order.  Today, someone made a motion, it was seconded, but the proponents of the motion got distracted and we went on to other business.  The meeting ended and no vote was taken.  The meeting just ended - no motion to adjourn - it just ended.  So my question is:  Is the union required to hold a vote in our next meeting?  Or does someone have to make another motion?

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

That is pretty much the definition of "unfinished business." So if your "regular business meetings . . . are not separated by more than a quarterly time interval" (RONR pg. 358, ll. 2-4), then such a matter should be placed on the agenda as unfinished business, rather than new business.

But regardless, someone still needs to move the adoption of items on an agenda. So the only real question is where it goes on the agenda. If it is unfinished business, it has priority over new business.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

Don't really know what happened, but tf the chair didn't state the motion, and there was no debate, then it wouldn't be unfinished business, would it? 

[Richard Brown]

I would treat it as unfinished business to come up at the appropriate point in the next meeting prior to the introduction of new business.  But, if folks want to treat it as new business instead, have at it. I wouldn't get into the weeds with it.

[George Mervosh]

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I would treat it as unfinished business to come up at the appropriate point in the next meeting prior to the introduction of new business.  But, if folks want to treat it as new business instead, have at it. I wouldn't get into the weeds with it.

I don't think it fits neatly into the three categories of unfinished business found on p. 358, but I'm not willing to start a procedural war over it either.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

I'm really in the same place as my colleagues. As I already said, it's only a matter of where it goes on the agenda. Either way, a motion needs to be made and processed.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I don't think it fits neatly into the three categories of unfinished business found on p. 358, but I'm not willing to start a procedural war over it either.

Well, certainly a situation in which “someone made a motion, it was seconded, but the proponents of the motion got distracted and we went on to other business” is not going to neatly fit into anything, since this is not a proper application of parliamentary procedure.

I believe Guest WCtD is correct that, as a technical matter, if the motion was not stated by the chair, it was never pending, and therefore cannot be considered unfinished business.

If, on the other hand, the motion was stated by the chair, then it would seem to me that, although this does not exactly fit any of the scenarios on page 358, it is close enough that it should be considered unfinished business, in my view.

3 hours ago, Greg Goodwiller, PRP said:

I'm really in the same place as my colleagues. As I already said, it's only a matter of where it goes on the agenda. Either way, a motion needs to be made and processed.

If it is Unfinished Business, the motion does not need to be made again - rather, it should simply be stated by the chair at the appropriate time.