Assuming a Motion

[Antoinette K.]

My understanding from Official Interpretation 2007-1 is that in certain circumstances, a chair may "assume" a motion. Such instances are to facilitate the business of the assembly or when the motion is a matter of clear-cut procedure. Would it be reasonable to say that adopting the agenda and closing the meeting could also be examples of where assuming a motion may be appropriate? Also, RONR states that assuming the motion may appropriate   . . ."provided that the assembly is accustomed to this method." Are there any examples of how to prove this? For example, would a pattern of the chair assuming motions at meetings suffice?

[Atul Kapur]

Your quotation refers to the situation where a report from a committee or board makes a recommendation but the person presenting the report doesn't make the motion to implement the recommendation. (RONR 11th ed., p. 507) The need for the assembly to be accustomed to the method is not mentioned in other places that discuss assumed motions.

More generally, on p. 54, you will find that "In cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business or on questions of little importance, time can often be saved by the procedure of unanimous consent . . . . to take action without even the formality of a motion." (emphasis added)

So, for example, the chair may say, "If there is no objection to adopting the agenda [pause] the agenda is adopted."

For adjournment, p. 241, lines 9-15 may be helpful

Quote

When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business (41) at each regular
meeting (9), the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, “Is there any further business?” If there is no response, the chair can then say, “Since there is
no further business, the meeting is adjourned.”

 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Antoinette K. said:

Would it be reasonable to say that adopting the agenda and closing the meeting could also be examples of where assuming a motion may be appropriate?

In an assembly which customarily adopts an agenda, yes, I think it would be appropriate for the chairman to assume a motion to adopt the proposed agenda. This certainly seems to be "a means of saving the time of the assembly when it is obvious that the motion is necessary or appropriate in light of the pending business." I also concur with Mr. Kapur that requesting unanimous consent might also be appropriate.

Adjourning the meeting is not a good example, because the motion to adjourn is actually a special case. In certain circumstances, the chairman can simply declare the meeting adjourned on his own - no need to even assume a motion to do so. Specifically, these instances are:

• The assembly normally completes its entire order of business at each regular meeting, the order of business for the current meeting has been completed, and when the chair asks if there is any further business, no member responds.
• The assembly has previously set a time for adjournment and that time has been reached.
• There is an emergency (such as a fire or riot), and it would endanger the members' safety to go through the steps of a formal motion and vote on adjournment.

2 hours ago, Antoinette K. said:

Also, RONR states that assuming the motion may appropriate   . . ."provided that the assembly is accustomed to this method." Are there any examples of how to prove this? For example, would a pattern of the chair assuming motions at meetings suffice?

Yes, I would think a pattern of the chair assuming motions at meetings would suffice.

Edited May 8, 2020 at 08:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Antoinette K.]

Thank you both for your response.

[Rob Elsman]

If your assembly meets at least as often as quarterly, it should not adopt an agenda at the beginning of each session; rather, it should use the standard order of business or one established by adopting a special rule of order.

[Antoinette K.]

Hello All,

I have a follow up question on this.  Is there any particular wording in RONR on an assumed motion? For example, on the above-mentioned motion to adopt the agenda, assuming we didn't want to take the unanimous consent route. Or would it be appropriate to just state "The question is on the adoption of the agenda," something to that effect? Any examples would be helpful.

[Josh Martin]

2 minutes ago, Antoinette K. said:

Hello All,

I have a follow up question on this.  Is there any particular wording in RONR on an assumed motion? For example, on the above-mentioned motion to adopt the agenda, assuming we didn't want to take the unanimous consent route. Or would it be appropriate to just state "The question is on the adoption of the agenda," something to that effect? Any examples would be helpful.

Yes, I think you have it right. In assuming a motion, the chair essentially skips the steps of members making and seconding the motion and goes right to stating the question. Stating "The question is on the adoption of the agenda" would be appropriate.

[Antoinette K.]

Thank you for confirming.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Martin in this particular case. However, it would not be proper to assume the motion in assemblies that do not habitually adopt an agenda at the beginning of the meeting as a matter of course.