Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Kosher? Motion/Second without intent to vote Yes


Recommended Posts

Guest Mr. Lutz

How appropriate/allowed is it for someone to make a motion and someone to second that motion when neither has the intent of voting "yes" on that motion? In this case, in an even-numbered body where one member has passed away leaving a vacancy and in order to affect the order in which two competing motions are voted upon in hopes that a tie-breaking individual will not vote "yes" twice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Lutz said:

How appropriate/allowed is it for someone to make a motion and someone to second that motion when neither has the intent of voting "yes" on that motion?

There's no rule against it. However, "In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 393)

15 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Lutz said:

In this case, in an even-numbered body . . . and in order to affect the order in which two competing motions are voted upon in hopes that a tie-breaking individual will not vote "yes" twice?

Nobody is allowed to cast two votes on the same motion unless the body's rules specifically say so.

In addition, if this is obviously a tactic to "force" the second motion to be adopted after the first one is defeated, the members on the other side can simply create a tie vote on the second motion as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mr. Lutz

Thanks. Is a similar obligation extended to the person who seconds a motion? Seconding seems to be gauging if there is enough interest in a motion to carry it forward, so someone who seconds might be simply thinking "there's obviously enough interest to carry this forward, even if it's not my interest."

In this case, it wasn't the same motion being voted twice, but rather, "shall we appoint individual A to such and such an office?" then "shall we appoint individual B?" The initial motion/second seemed designed to force a "no" vote on individual A from member X because they preferred (but not exclusively, perhaps), individual B. Had the voting order been reversed, member X may have voted "yes" to both individuals B and A.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Mr. Lutz said:

Thanks. Is a similar obligation extended to the person who seconds a motion? Seconding seems to be gauging if there is enough interest in a motion to carry it forward, so someone who seconds might be simply thinking "there's obviously enough interest to carry this forward, even if it's not my interest."

 

The person who seconds a motion may speak against it in debate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...