Recommendation out of committee

[Guest Jane]

If a recommendation/motion comes out of committee, i.e., slate of officers from the nominating committee, is that consider the 'motion' and a second is not required? 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/26/2021 at 5:43 PM, Guest Jane said:

If a recommendation/motion comes out of committee, i.e., slate of officers from the nominating committee, is that consider the 'motion' and a second is not required? 

Yes, if a recommendation/motion comes out of a committee of more than one member, no second is required.  However I  think that a slate of officers list of  nominees would be a report of the committee but not necessarily a motion.

[Guest Zev]

On 11/26/2021 at 2:51 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

However I  think that a slate of officers list of  nominees would be a report of the committee but not necessarily a motion.

So a report from the Nominating Committee that they have no recommendation or instead a report that so-and-so be elected are one and the same thing, that is, they propose nothing and are therefore not motions. Correct?

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/27/2021 at 1:33 AM, Guest Zev said:

So a report from the Nominating Committee that they have no recommendation or instead a report that so-and-so be elected are one and the same thing, that is, they propose nothing and are therefore not motions. Correct?

IMO, neither of those reports would be proper. The committee has a duty to nominate candidate, but that's all they do; nominate. The election comes later. Maybe at the same meeting, or a later meeting. But in any event, nomination and election are two distinct steps.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/27/2021 at 10:57 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

The committee has a duty to nominate candidate, but that's all they do; nominate.

Isn't a nomination, whether by committee or by an individual, a proposal that the nominated person be elected? I think the best analogy is probably to a proposal to fill a blank, and I don't think it's a stretch to say that making a proposal to fill a blank is akin to a statement that that proposal *should* fill the blank. (Would a person be allowed to speak in debate against his proposal to fill the blank? I don't know.) In other words, when I say "I nominate Jim," am I not moving that Jim be elected? I might lose, but it seems to me that that is what I am doing.

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/27/2021 at 11:03 AM, Joshua Katz said:

In other words, when I say "I nominate Jim," am I not moving that Jim be elected? I might lose, but it seems to me that that is what I am doing.

As you previously indicated, and as stated in 46:1, a nomination is more akin to a proposal to fill a blank, but I suppose no one will get overly upset if you call it a motion.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/27/2021 at 11:26 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As you previously indicated, and as stated in 46:1, a nomination is more akin to a proposal to fill a blank, but I suppose no one will get overly upset if you call it a motion.

Isn't a proposal to fill a blank akin to a motion that the thing I wish to fill it with be adopted?

[Rob Elsman]

When Mr. Honemann uses the word "akin", he is indicating that an election of officers is not exactly the same thing as filling a blank.  For one thing, the completion of an election also completes the handling of the presumed, underlying main motion.  When a blank is filled, the underlying motion is still pending.  Therefore, it is important not to take the comparison of the two procedures too far.

[Guest Zev]

Quote

 

46:1

A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion "that ____ be elected" to the specified position.

 

I was relying on this passage. Perhaps I misunderstood what it meant.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/27/2021 at 9:03 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Isn't a nomination, whether by committee or by an individual, a proposal that the nominated person be elected?

I agree that it generally is safe to assume that a nomination is am indication that the nominator believes the nominee should be elected. But I still think it would be improper for a nominating committee to couch its report in the form "that [name of nominee] be elected." I believe that would encourage the erroneous practice of voting "yes" or "no" on the committee's proposal rather than seeking additional nominations and then conducting a proper election. Better and less confusing to just stick with "the committee nominates [name of nominee]."

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/27/2021 at 8:25 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I agree that it generally is safe to assume that a nomination is am indication that the nominator believes the nominee should be elected. But I still think it would be improper for a nominating committee to couch its report in the form "that [name of nominee] be elected." I believe that would encourage the erroneous practice of voting "yes" or "no" on the committee's proposal rather than seeking additional nominations and then conducting a proper election. Better and less confusing to just stick with "the committee nominates [name of nominee]."

Oh, I thought this was all just a little fuss about nomenclature.  I agree that the report of a nominating committee should be made as shown in RONR, 12 ed., 46:15, or something very close to it. 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/28/2021 at 4:30 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Oh, I thought this was all just a little fuss about nomenclature. 

I suppose it is. But sometimes nomenclature can be important. 

[Dan Honemann]

 

On 11/28/2021 at 10:54 AM, Weldon Merritt said:

I suppose it is. But sometimes nomenclature can be important. 

Okay, I agree that nomenclature can sometimes be important, and I agree that nominations and proposals to fill a blank, strictly speaking, are not motions.  

Now are we all happy?  🙂

[Weldon Merritt]

On 11/28/2021 at 9:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Now are we all happy?  🙂

I am. 😄

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/28/2021 at 11:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

Okay, I agree that nomenclature can sometimes be important, and I agree that nominations and proposals to fill a blank, strictly speaking, are not motions.  

Now are we all happy?  🙂

Blissful. 😁

[Shmuel Gerber]

Reading this thread has made me happy too. (Or maybe it's the doughnuts.) 🙂

In any event, I'll just point out that nominations never need to be seconded, even when made by an individual member.

[George Mervosh]

On 11/28/2021 at 11:58 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

Okay, I agree that nomenclature can sometimes be important, and I agree that nominations and proposals to fill a blank, strictly speaking, are not motions.  

Now are we all happy?  🙂

Dagnabit, I guess I need to stop calling nominations Motion #53. 

Edited November 29, 2021 at 03:05 PM by George Mervosh

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/29/2021 at 10:02 AM, George Mervosh said:

Dagnabit, I guess I need to stop calling nominations Motion #53. 

Well yeah, that's why #53 has that thingamajig in the first column. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/29/2021 at 10:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well yeah, that's why #53 has that thingamajig in the first column. 

Yeah, that thingamajig, something like a dash, is not explained in the Key to Classification, which I presume means that nominations have no class, which explains a lot now that I think about it.  In any case it only deepens that mystery of whether they are motions or not.

I suspect the reason it was stuck in at #53 is that the integer 53 is the smallest prime number that does not divide the order of any sporadic finite group.  Who knows?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/29/2021 at 11:33 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yeah, that thingamajig, something like a dash

Oh, *that* first column.

In the other first column (you know, the first one), it says "Nominations, to make (46)", and honestly I had no idea what Dan was talking about. 🙂

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/29/2021 at 12:46 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Oh, *that* first column.

In the other first column (you know, the first one), it says "Nominations, to make (46)", and honestly I had no idea what Dan was talking about. 🙂

I was obviously talking about the first column after the first column, which is how everyone in his right mind refers to it.   

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/29/2021 at 1:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I was obviously talking about the first column after the first column, which is how everyone in his right mind refers to it.   

I counted the leftmost column as the zeroth column, making the first column the first column after the zeroth column.

But I still don't know what the -- mark means.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/29/2021 at 1:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I was obviously talking about the first column after the first column, which is how everyone in his right mind refers to it.   

😂

[Dan Honemann]

On 11/29/2021 at 1:11 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

But I still don't know what the -- mark means.

It means it ain't a motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 11/29/2021 at 1:14 PM, Dan Honemann said:

It means it ain't a motion.

Excellent.