Reporting members moving recommendations

[Alex Meed]

RONR states, in connection with Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation.... In the case of a committee report, on the other hand, the chairman or other reporting member should make any motion(s) necessary to bring the committee's recommendations before the assembly for consideration." RONR (11th ed.), p. 356, ll. 5–11.

This gives rise to two questions:

• Should the chairman of a board make any motions arising from the board's report (as for committees) or allow other members to make the motion (as for officers of the society)?
• From a normative perspective, why are officers (apart from the president) encouraged not to move adoption of their recommendations?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Alex M. said:

Should the chairman of a board make any motions arising from the board's report (as for committees) or allow other members to make the motion (as for officers of the society)?

The reporting member of the board should make any motions arising from the report himself, as for committees.

I would note, however, that the chairman of the board and the chairman of meetings of the general membership are the same person in many societies. In such cases, the board should have someone other than the chairman give the report and make the resulting recommendations, in order to preserve the chairman’s appearance of impartiality.

2 hours ago, Alex M. said:

From a normative perspective, why are officers (apart from the president) encouraged not to move adoption of their recommendations?

I honestly have no idea.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with both of Josh Martin's answers but held off answering earlier because I honestly have no idea, either, why RONR says an officer should not move the adoption of his own recommendations.  I agree that an officer giving a report of a board could move the adoption of the board's recommendation without the need for a second for the same reason that the reporting member of a committee may do so.  I see no reason for a distinction.  In both instances, the board or committee probably has at least two members and for a recommendation to be the recommendation of the board or committee, at least two members already support it.

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with the answers you have received and, in fact, asked your second question many months ago and never did get an answer.

If I recall correctly, the board report would usually be given by the secretary rather than the chairman of the board. 

[George Mervosh]

18 hours ago, Alex M. said:

• From a normative perspective, why are officers (apart from the president) encouraged not to move adoption of their recommendations?

Mr. Honemann addressed this in this thread https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30575-motion-arising-from-officers-report/?tab=comments#comment-177242

[Rob Elsman]

The rule is suspect. It may well be a relic of another era when a female officer, such as a secretary or treasurer, making a motion arising from a recommendation in her report would be viewed as too forward or impolitely out of her place in a male-dominated society.

I see no further need for the rule. Both for the sake of streamlining the rules generally and eliminating suspect, sexist rules, I recommend that the rule concerning the making of motions arising from committees' reports be also followed with respect to the making of motions arising from officers' reports.

[Atul Kapur]

The language in RONR specifically uses the masculine, so I'm wondering where you get the idea that there is a sexist origin to the rule?

Quote

RONR p. 356, l. 5 ff says: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation, but such a motion can be made by another member as soon as the officer has concluded his report." [emphasis added]

 

[Alex Meed]

10 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Mr. Honemann addressed this in this thread https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30575-motion-arising-from-officers-report/?tab=comments#comment-177242

Interesting. I wonder what General Robert's reasoning was when he wrote that into the first draft. It strikes me as decidedly odd.

[Rob Elsman]

Mr. Kapur, it is standard English to use the masculine forms of personal adjectives and pronouns when both genders are intended. Clearly, the rule is that officers of both genders do not make motions arising from their reports; but, that does not mean that the underlying purpose of the rule is not suspect of having been colored by the accepted female gender roles of General Robert's day, which are significantly different than the roles of women today.

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

Mr. Kapur, it is standard English to use the masculine forms of personal adjectives and pronouns when both genders are intended. Clearly, the rule is that officers of both genders do not make motions arising from their reports; but, that does not mean that the underlying purpose of the rule is not suspect of having been colored by the accepted female gender roles of General Robert's day, which are significantly different than the roles of women today.

True. And in accordance with "the accepted female gender roles of General Robert's day," it would have been rare for a female to serve as an officer in any organization (except an exclusively or primarily female organization). So I doubt that gender discrimination was the motivation for the rule.

I agree, however, that regardless of the original motivation for the rule, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Perhaps it's heresy to say it, but the mere fact that "General Robert said so" does not mean that the rule is forever immune from being questioned or abolished.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/24/2020 at 10:11 AM, George Mervosh said:

Mr. Honemann addressed this in this thread https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/30575-motion-arising-from-officers-report/?tab=comments#comment-177242

Spoiler alert:  Because the General said so.  ☺️