Why don’t officers move their own recommendations?

[Paul]

41:14 states that recommendations from an officer’s report shouldn’t be moved by the officer. Why is that? It seems inefficient and I’m not clear on the purpose it serves. 

[RSW]

You'll note that moving based on a single officer's report is phrased as a "a motion can be made", whereas moving based on a committee's recommendation is phrased as "the chairman or other reporting member should make any motion(s) necessary".

A committee's report, by definition, already has enough support behind it to be worthy of bringing motions to the floor. A particular officer's report may or may not have such support. And if literally nobody else is interested in pursuing the recommendations it's actually *more* efficient to not move them in the first place.

[Rob Elsman]

I believe @RSW has misunderstood the question posed.  As far as I know, Robert's Rules has never explained the reason.  Perhaps a historian of parliamentary law will see this post and replyl

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

I believe @RSW has misunderstood the question posed.  As far as I know, Robert's Rules has never explained the reason.  Perhaps a historian of parliamentary law will see this post and replyl

My thoughts, exactly. It was my impression that the original poster knows the rule, but is questioning the reason for it. The fact that an officer is only one person and not a committee of at least two people could be a reason for the rule. It also raises the question whether the officer is free to make a motion to implement his recommendation at the appropriate time later in the order of business at a meeting.  

Another possible reason that comes to mind is that committee reports are frequently (generally?) for the purpose of making a recommendation on a particular matter that has been referred to the committee for study. On the other hand, officers reports are usually just reports on their activities since the last meeting. They generally do not contain recommendations to be acted upon by the assembly.

Edited to add:  I note that 48:19 on Reports of Executive Officers does say that “motions to adopt or implement any recommendations should be made from the floor by a member other than the reporting officer.“ I further note, however, that that appears to be in the nature of a “should“ rule, and not a prohibition. 

 Perhaps General Robert just thought it was “unseemly” for an officer to make a motion to implement his own recommendation.
 

Edited April 18, 2021 at 03:47 AM by Richard Brown
Edited first paragraph and added last two paragraphs

[Richard Brown]

Upon further reading, 48:19 seems to refer specifically  only to reports from the president and vice president. That indicates to me that other officers may indeed make motions to implement recommendations contained in their reports.

 I fully understand why the president should not make a motion in other than a small board, but I do not see how that rationale would apply to the vice president or to the other officers.  So, joining with the original poster and with Rob Elsman, I hope that someone can shed some light on the rationale for the last sentence in 48:19.

[RSW]

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

I believe @RSW has misunderstood the question posed.  As far as I know, Robert's Rules has never explained the reason. 

I was merely commenting on the OP's observation that it seems inefficient.

As for the rationale, I agree with Mr. Brown's hypothesis that General Robert may have thought it "unseemly", and nobody ever decided it needed to be corrected. There's a lot of tradition in parliamentary procedure that would appear to stem from that sort of rationale. 

Edited April 18, 2021 at 04:29 AM by RSW
Corrected pronoun

[Atul Kapur]

I couldn't find the thread where I posed this question earlier. As I recall, @Daniel H. Honemann's answer was basically that this was that way because HMR wrote it that way.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I couldn't find the thread where I posed this question earlier. As I recall, @Daniel H. Honemann's answer was basically that this was that way because HMR wrote it that way.

I’ vaguely recall that, as well. I also looked it up in Parliamentary Law and general Robert says on page 301 regarding reports of officers: “if recommendations are made, a motion should be made to refer them to a committee, or a resolution may be offered in conformity with the recommendation. In no case does the officer make a motion relating to his own report, whereas the chairman of a committee is the one who should make the motion to dispose of the committees report.“

Edited April 18, 2021 at 06:28 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Paul said:

41:14 states that recommendations from an officer’s report shouldn’t be moved by the officer. Why is that? It seems inefficient and I’m not clear on the purpose it serves. 

People have asked this several times over the years, and my recollection is that no one (including the Authorship Team) really knows the answer.

The "unseemly" guess seems as good as any. That seems comparable to the statements in earlier editions that it was "unseemly" (although not prohibited) for members to nominate themselves.

9 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

It also raises the question whether the officer is free to make a motion to implement his recommendation at the appropriate time later in the order of business at a meeting.  

I do not think the rule in question would apply to an officer making a motion on the subject at the appropriate time later in the order of business.