Guest SAA Posted April 6, 2019 at 12:41 AM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 12:41 AM 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 6, 2019 at 01:26 AM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 01:26 AM (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 6, 2019 at 03:45 AM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 03:45 AM (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted April 6, 2019 at 05:01 AM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 05:01 AM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted April 6, 2019 at 04:54 PM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 04:54 PM 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atul Kapur Posted April 6, 2019 at 05:45 PM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 05:45 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted April 6, 2019 at 08:44 PM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 08:44 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted April 6, 2019 at 09:04 PM Report Share Posted April 6, 2019 at 09:04 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted April 7, 2019 at 05:44 PM Report Share Posted April 7, 2019 at 05:44 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts