Can Officers Motion for Own Report

[Guest Tad]

May an Officer make a motion for their own report after they present it?

[Rob Elsman]

I am puzzled by the fact that "an Officer" is followed by reflexive pronouns in the plural.  What gives?

At any rate, it is proper for an officer to move the adoption of any recommendations contained in his report at the conclusion of his presentation.

Well, that was certainly the wrong answer.  There is a rule that would have it that the adoption of recommendations contained in an officer's report should be moved by someone other than the officer, so the direct answer is "no".

I have my own opinions about this, though.  They are just mine.  I can well understand why the president would not want to move, since he will then be seen as a partisan and unable to preside.  However, with respect to other officers, such as the secretary or treasurer, I think the rule is obsolete and ill-advised.  In the past, secretaries, in particular, were very often women, and I am suspicious that the basis of the rule lay in the view that women should not be "forward" in groups--especially groups predominated by men.  In today's world, I am of the opinion that officers, men and women, other than presidents, should feel welcome to exercise their right of membership to move the adoption of recommendations contained in their reports.

Edited August 25, 2022 at 04:09 PM by Rob Elsman

[Richard Brown]

On 8/25/2022 at 10:49 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I am puzzled by the fact that "an Officer" is followed by reflexive pronouns in the plural.  What gives?

I noticed the same thing and had a similar reaction! 

On 8/25/2022 at 10:49 AM, Rob Elsman said:

At any rate, it is proper for an officer to move the adoption of any recommendations contained in his report at the conclusion of his presentation.

I respectfully disagree with you on this point. Although it might possibly be permissible for an officer to move the adoption of his own recommendation, RONR is very clear in section 48:19 regarding reports of executive officers that an officer should not move to adopt us on recommendation. The last sentence of that section reads as follows: “motions to adopt or implement any recommendations should be made from the floor by a member other than the reporting officer.“. (The italics are in the original text).

Edited to add: as pointed out by Bruce Lages in another thread, section 48:19 regarding reports of executive officers apparently applies only to the reports of the president and vice president. Upon further reading I agree with Mr. Lages that the rule does not apply to reports of other officers and that they may move the adoption of their own reports.
 

Edited August 25, 2022 at 04:29 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Rob Elsman]

I am sorry to put you to the trouble, Mr. Brown.  I caught my mistake as soon as I hit the button, and I was working on a better response as you typed.  I have struck through my response and made it a light gray.

However, I have added a little more about my own opinion about where this rule should go.  You might find it interesting.  I hope the authors see it and consider it.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:13 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I am sorry to put you to the trouble, Mr. Brown.  I caught my mistake as soon as I hit the button, and I was working on a better response as you typed. 

Well, actually, we were both half right and half wrong! Please see my edited response above, which is the paragraph I added. Section 48:19 apparently applies to only reports of executive officers, i.e., the president and vice president. It apparently does not apply to the reports of other officers. 

[Rob Elsman]

Hmm.  I reread the section, and I agree with you and Mr. Lages.  I am not too sure why the vice-president should not be able to exercise his right of membership to make motions if he is not in the chair.  It seems to me that, if he is not actually in the chair, he is free to become a partisan in this way or any other--debate, voting, etc.

I still have concerns about this rule having a suspicious basis when it is applied to someone other than the occupant of the chair.  I get it about the chair.  Otherwise, I suspect it has an old-time basis that is unconscionable in today's world.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:28 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Hmm.  I reread the section, and I agree with you and Mr. Lages.  I am not too sure why the vice-president should not be able to exercise his right of membership to make motions if he is not in the chair.  It seems to me that, if he is not actually in the chair, he is free to become a partisan in this way or any other--debate, voting, etc.

I share your concerns expressed above and also in your original answer about the reports of officers. I can understand why the president, who should appear impartial and should not be making motions while presiding, should not move the adoption of his own recommendation. However, I see no logical reason for that rule to apply to any of the other officers. It seems to me officers should be free to move the adoption of recommendations contained  in their own reports. 

Edited August 25, 2022 at 07:03 PM by Richard Brown
Added underlined text

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:49 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I am puzzled by the fact that "an Officer" is followed by reflexive pronouns in the plural.  What gives?

I think that train has sailed.

[Richard Brown]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:33 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think that train has sailed.

Not from my house! 

[Rob Elsman]

Did you mean, "...that train have sailed"? 😁

[Gary Novosielski]

Those boats was left the station(s).

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/25/2022 at 12:28 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Otherwise, I suspect it has an old-time basis that is unconscionable in today's world.

I will remember to add that to my growing list of things that are unconscionable in today's world.✍️  At the end. 😊

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/25/2022 at 11:49 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I am puzzled by the fact that "an Officer" is followed by reflexive pronouns in the plural.  What gives?

Evolution of the English language "gives".

Some on this forum apparently dost not believe in evolution, but most modern style guides accept or encourage this usage and dictionaries, while making the singular use of 'they' Word-of-the-Year sometime in the previous decade, note such use for over 600 years a century.

I shall say no more as we have traveled this ground previously and some still refuse to acknowledge modern usage.

Edited August 25, 2022 at 09:19 PM by Atul Kapur
As per Merriam Webster www[dot]merriam-webster[dot]com/words-at-play/woty2019-top-looked-up-words-they

[Rob Elsman]

I see no need to confuse bad grammar with modern usage, but, as they say, SATIS PVLCRA.

[Mike6453]

I have read the discussion above on 48:19 and seek further clarification. 

Situation: I am the Moderator; all I do is moderate business meetings of church. The church has no executive officer, no president, and no vice president. We have chairs of a number of committees, including the finance/governance committee that is considered the most senior committee. I am also chairing our Nominating Committee. At the next church meeting, the Nominating Committee has to present a slate of officers for next year. This is presented to the church as a motion and the church votes on the motion.

Questions: Can I as moderator present the motion to accept the nominations from the Nominating Committee? I understand from the discussion above that officers other than executive officer, president, and vice president may do so, but since I am moderator of the meeting, I am struggling with how to proceed. If you experts opine that I should not make the motion, may I speak at all regarding the motion or the philosophy of how we operated as a committee to come up with the nominations? This would not be debating for or against the motion, just explaining the committee's work process.

Thank you for your guidance!

[Josh Martin]

On 9/16/2022 at 8:06 AM, Mike6453 said:

At the next church meeting, the Nominating Committee has to present a slate of officers for next year. This is presented to the church as a motion and the church votes on the motion.

For starters, this is not how elections work in RONR. The nominating committee's list of nominations is simply that - a list of nominations. Additional nominations are in order, and members would vote for the candidate of their choice for each office, rather than taking a single vote on approving a "slate" of nominations from the nominating committee.

Unless your bylaws actually prescribe this method of voting on a "slate" of officers in its entirety, it should be ceased immediately. And if your bylaws do provide for such a procedure, I would advise amending the bylaws to change that.

On 9/16/2022 at 8:06 AM, Mike6453 said:

Questions: Can I as moderator present the motion to accept the nominations from the Nominating Committee? I understand from the discussion above that officers other than executive officer, president, and vice president may do so, but since I am moderator of the meeting, I am struggling with how to proceed. If you experts opine that I should not make the motion, may I speak at all regarding the motion or the philosophy of how we operated as a committee to come up with the nominations? This would not be debating for or against the motion, just explaining the committee's work process.

As noted above, it is not clear to me that it is proper for this motion to be made at all. To the extent that such a motion is in order, then the moderator certainly should not make the motion. I also do not think it is appropriate for the moderator to speak "regarding the motion or the philosophy of how we operated as a committee to come up with the nominations." In my view, the nominating committee should select a different committee member to serve as reporting member.

Edited September 16, 2022 at 01:52 PM by Josh Martin