Meeting Minutes - Recording Motions Made but that are not seconded?

[Guest Lemino]

Should all motions made, including those that are not seconded, be recorded in meeting minutes?

[George Mervosh]

1 minute ago, Guest Lemino said:

Should all motions made, including those that are not seconded, be recorded in meeting minutes?

With regard to main motions, yes.  The only main motions not normally recorded are ones that were withdrawn.  See RONR (12th ed.), 48:4 6) but I'd recommend reading all of Section 48 regarding other types of motions, etc.

[Gary Novosielski]

20 hours ago, Guest Lemino said:

Should all motions made, including those that are not seconded, be recorded in meeting minutes?

Yes, they should be recorded with a statement that they died for lack of a second.  For other motions, there is no need to state that they were seconded.

[Richard Brown]

21 hours ago, Guest Lemino said:

Should all motions made, including those that are not seconded, be recorded in meeting minutes?

 

49 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, they should be recorded with a statement that they died for lack of a second.  For other motions, there is no need to state that they were seconded.

But as Mr. Mervosh stated above, RONR provides that motions which are withdrawn are not included in the minutes. 

[Scott Fischer]

Would the below wording be an acceptable example of how to write such a situation for the minutes?

Mr. John Smith made a motion to do "X". The motion was lost for lack of a second.

[Dan Honemann]

3 hours ago, Scott Fischer said:

Would the below wording be an acceptable example of how to write such a situation for the minutes?

Mr. John Smith made a motion to do "X". The motion was lost for lack of a second.

Technically no, because a motion is said to be "lost" (or "rejected") when it has been voted down. It would be much better to say, as Mr. Novosielski has already suggested, that it "died for lack of a second."

[Scott Fischer]

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Technically no, because a motion is said to be "lost" (or "rejected") when it has been voted down. It would be much better to say, as Mr. Novosielski has already suggested, that it "died for lack of a second."

The distinction is noted. Thanks!

[Guest lemino]

Thanks for all the replies. How is a "main motion" defined?

[George Mervosh]

5 minutes ago, Guest lemino said:

Thanks for all the replies. How is a "main motion" defined?

"A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly."  RONR (12th ed.), 6:1, but read all of 6:1 and 6:2

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/17/2020 at 4:19 PM, George Mervosh said:

"A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly."  RONR (12th ed.), 6:1, but read all of 6:1 and 6:2

Or, as the late Kim Goldsworthy might want us to say in regard to this topic, a main motion is a motion whose introduction would bring business before the assembly if it took place and does bring business before the assembly if it does take place. 🙂

[Gary Novosielski]

6 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Or, as the late Kim Goldsworthy might want us to say in regard to this topic, a main motion is a motion whose introduction would bring business before the assembly if it took place and does bring business before the assembly if it does take place. 🙂

I suggest a new section in the tinted pages outlining the characteristics of parliamentary situations that do not occur. 

The good news is that motions whose introduction does not take place do not require a second and can't possibly interrupt a speaker.  There's two columns saved right there.

Edited November 19, 2020 at 09:57 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Or, as the late Kim Goldsworthy might want us to say in regard to this topic, a main motion is a motion whose introduction would bring business before the assembly if it took place and does bring business before the assembly if it does take place. 🙂

As so often happens, I'm afraid that I'm missing the point.  

Statement 1.  "A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly."   (RONR version)

Statement 2.  "A main motion is a motion which, if introduced, brings business before the assembly."  (Another version I just made up)

Statement 3.  "A main motion is a motion whose introduction would bring business before the assembly if it took place and does bring business before the assembly if it does take place."  (Goldsworthy version)

If we can assume that, in Statement 3, the phrase "if it took place" means "if it were introduced", and that "if it does take place" means "if it is introduced", is there supposed to be some material difference between any of these statements?  If so, I'm afraid that I fail to see it.

I do recall the old argument to the effect that Statement 1 means, or at least implies, that a motion that has been made but not introduced cannot be a main motion, but this simply doesn't follow. I might say that candy is a food that tastes good when eaten, but that doesn't mean that if it isn't eaten it isn't candy.

So there!  🙂

[Shmuel Gerber]

19 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As so often happens, I'm afraid that I'm missing the point.  

Statement 1.  "A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly."   (RONR version)

Statement 2.  "A main motion is a motion which, if introduced, brings business before the assembly."  (Another version I just made up)

Statement 3.  "A main motion is a motion whose introduction would bring business before the assembly if it took place and does bring business before the assembly if it does take place."  (Goldsworthy version)

If we can assume that, in Statement 3, the phrase "if it took place" means "if it were introduced", and that "if it does take place" means "if it is introduced", is there supposed to be some material difference between any of these statements?  If so, I'm afraid that I fail to see it.

I do recall the old argument to the effect that Statement 1 means, or at least implies, that a motion that has been made but not introduced cannot be a main motion, but this simply doesn't follow. I might say that candy is a food that tastes good when eaten, but that doesn't mean that if it isn't eaten it isn't candy.

So there!  🙂

There is not supposed to be a material difference between the statements. My "Goldsworthy" homage version was just a whimsical attempt to explicitly disavow the old argument.

[Dan Honemann]

Okay. 

I just needed something to do to take my mind off the fact that I think I went a bit too far in what I said in another thread about what can go in the minutes.  🙂

[Gary Novosielski]

"Contrariwise, if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." 

--Tweedledum.