Resolution "Abandoned"

[Guest SAA]

A resolution was  properly   filed  30 days before the meeting as required by the bylaws  . 

"X "  signed as  " mover" ,  and  'Y" as  "second"  . When the meeting arrived at this matter of business it was  noted to be next  by the Chair . She then asked if the mover "X"  would 

attend  at the floor " Mic..." . No one responded and she then  asked if " Y " was present .  Neither 'X" nor "Y" were present  . The Chair then asked if anyone wished to move the  proposal  as  submitted. 

A member ( "K")  came forward  and moved the resolution and  that was then  seconded .  A point of order was then raised that the Chair should not have invited   for a mover and that the failure of " X"  to attend and move the matter forward was a constructive  withdrawal of the resolution . And that " X " owned it until  it went to the assembly and no one else could take it  over . The  chair  ruled that the point was not well made and that the resolution would go forward for discussion  and determination. 

Was the  chair correct and if so where is that specifically  supported in RONR ?

SAA

[Richard Brown]

Based on RONR yes, the chair was correct. Any member could have actually moved that the motion be adopted. The person who gives notice of a motion does not need to be the person who actually moves that the motion be adopted. Although nothing in RONR requires the chair to ask if someone else wants to make the motion, there is nothing inappropriate about the chair doing so. It is not much different from the chair asking if there is a second to a motion.

However, I suspect you may have some unique bylaw Provision or special Rule of Order on the subject because of the way your post was worded. Any such bylaw provision or Special Rule of order would take priority over the provisions of RONR 

Edited to add:  I am not aware of a provision in  RONR which directly answers your question, but perhaps you can gain some insight from the following discussion from last year:  https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/32265-withdraw-noticed-bylaw-amendment/?

I suspect the reason for the conclusion that any member may move on (make) a motion for which previous notice was given is that what is important is that the members know that the motion is going to (or likely to) come before the assembly at the next meeting.  What matters is that the members have notice of the motion.  It really doesn't matter who actually makes the motion. 

It might be that more than one member wanted to give notice of the same motion, but that would be repetitive.  So, once a member gives notice of intent to introduce a motion at the next meeting, notice is  effectively given and any other member may make  the motion at the next meeting even if the member who originally gave notice of the motion has changed his mind and no longer wishes to have it considered.

Edited April 6, 2019 at 01:46 AM by Richard Brown
Added last three paragraphs

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

A member ( "K")  came forward  and moved the resolution and  that was then  seconded .  A point of order was then raised that the Chair should not have invited   for a mover and that the failure of " X"  to attend and move the matter forward was a constructive  withdrawal of the resolution . And that " X " owned it until  it went to the assembly and no one else could take it  over . The  chair  ruled that the point was not well made and that the resolution would go forward for discussion  and determination. 

Was the  chair correct and if so where is that specifically  supported in RONR ?

The chair was correct. 

“A motion to Reconsider (37), or a previous notice of a proposed motion requiring such notice (pp. 121–24), cannot be withdrawn after it is too late for renewal, unless unanimous consent is given.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 297)

Edited April 6, 2019 at 03:45 AM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

The chair was correct.

If the point of order was well taken, then it could be used to frustrate the will of the majority. Member X could give notice of a motion that the majority desires and then not show up at the next meeting in order to prevent the assembly from considering that motion.

There is nothing in RONR that requires the motion to be moved by the person who gave notice.

I draw the analogy to the motion to Reconsider. If it cannot be dealt with at the moment it is made and seconded, then any member can call it up when that would be in order (RONR 11th ed. p. 323) It does not have to be called up by the person who moved it.

I feel entitled to draw the analogy because Reconsider and Previous Notice of Motion are also similar in the rules around their withdrawal.

[Guest SAA]

Thanks to Mr'.s . Brown ,Martin ,and Kapur for their responses . The bylaw provision ,Mr. Brown, provides that all resolution must be submitted to the Board Secretary, 30 days prior  to the annual meeting, for any  proposal to come before the assembly - nothing more . 

However ,one question arises from these answers . If  member   " X" files a resolution  as required  ( timely ) and does show up does that member have an unqualified  right to withdraw the motion , assuming that withdrawal is offered  before  the resolution it is put to the assembly ?

 What if  member  "K"   rraises a point of  order to the effect : " although Mr " X" now indicates he is withdrawing his Resolution ( seeks to )  it was properly  filed within the bylaws requirement , and is legitimate as to its purpose - therefore   I  now  seek  to move the resolution forward . As a member is allowed to move a Resolution  filed by another member  - I now  move this resolution "

Something like that . 

Would member  "K" be correct -that he/she  could become the mover ? 

Thanks 

SAA

 

 

 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

Member "K" would be correct.

Your hypothetical concerns the time before the resolution is moved, seconded, and stated by the chair (that is, before it is "put to the assembly"). At that time, there is no resolution under consideration to be withdrawn. Member X would actually be trying to withdraw his notice of motion. Notice of motion cannot be withdrawn after the deadline for providing notice has expired, except with unanimous consent. (Again, this prevents misuse similar to what I described in my earlier post)

So the notice is still valid and Member K, or any other Member, can move the noticed resolution if X decides not to do so.

[Guest Zev]

16 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

A point of order was then raised that the Chair should not have invited for a mover and that the failure of "X"  to attend and move the matter forward was a constructive withdrawal of the resolution . And that "X" owned it until  it went to the assembly and no one else could take it  over.

I wonder where people get this kind of stuff.

[Joshua Katz]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

I wonder where people get this kind of stuff.

It's because, in other areas, you can have formality for its own sake without doing any real harm. So people learn formality for its own sake as if it were part of proper procedure, and apply it in areas where it does do damage. That's my theory, at least.

[Tom Coronite]

20 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

It's because, in other areas, you can have formality for its own sake without doing any real harm. So people learn formality for its own sake as if it were part of proper procedure, and apply it in areas where it does do damage. That's my theory, at least.

Pretty good one, I'd say.