Why is no second required if using the rules for small assemblies

[BabbsJohnson]

I’ve heard the idea that it’s not fair in a small assembly to require a second because of the high percentage it can represent (for instance, in an assembly of 7, a requirement for two people to get the motion into discussion is over 28%, whereas in an assembly of 50, its only 4%, and the requirement for getting a motion into discussion in a larger assembly does not increase. In a small group of seven that only has a quorum of four people on a night when people are absent, two people represents a requirement for 50% of the assembly-just to get it into discusssion, which seems a grossly unfair requirement.

Anyone have thoughts, clarification or expansion on this? 

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Well, it's not a matter what anyone has "heard." RONR has a section titled "Procedure in Small Boards" (it begins on page 487, l. 26). The section contains modifications for a "board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present," at which - therefore - "some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business." One of those modifications is: "Motions need not be seconded" (RONR pg. 488, l. 1).

I would also encourage you to look a what RONR has to say about seconds in general, especially on page 36, beginning at line 26, which says "the requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether or not 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."

Edited April 1, 2019 at 08:27 PM by Greg Goodwiller

[BabbsJohnson]

Yes, I understand that there is nothing stated in RONR about what I said about what I “heard”, it was an interpretation that sounded like it had merit, and I was looking for views on whether that was a reasonable argument.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

I think you will find that members of this forum prefer to stick with what RONR says, which in this case is that it is one of the formalities that is not necessary in a smaller group in order to accomplish its business. It is certainly true that the smaller an assembly, the greater each member's percentage of the total membership. But the reason the rules are relaxed is so that process doesn't hinder progress.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Nosey said:

I’ve heard the idea that it’s not fair in a small assembly to require a second because of the high percentage it can represent (for instance, in an assembly of 7, a requirement for two people to get the motion into discussion is over 28%, whereas in an assembly of 50, its only 4%, and the requirement for getting a motion into discussion in a larger assembly does not increase. In a small group of seven that only has a quorum of four people on a night when people are absent, two people represents a requirement for 50% of the assembly-just to get it into discusssion, which seems a grossly unfair requirement.

 Anyone have thoughts, clarification or expansion on this? 

As Mr. Goodwiller notes, “the requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether or not 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., pg. 36) The assumption implicit in this is that in a larger assembly, a motion which only one person wants to see introduced has very little chance of adoption. In a smaller assembly, this may not be the case, and therefore it is of benefit to the assembly for small boards to permit the introduction of motions without a second.

So no, I don’t think the rule itself it is about fairness to individual members, although certainly a particular assembly might view it this way.

[BabbsJohnson]

Thank you for the input, gentlemen