Why Do Motions to Implement Committee Recommendations Ever Need a Second?

[Atul Kapur]

RONR (12th ed.) 4:11 says

Quote

A motion made by direction of a board or duly appointed committee of the assembly requires no second from the floor (provided the subordinate group is composed of more than one person), since the motion’s introduction has been directed by a majority vote within the board or committee and is therefore desired by at least two assembly members or elected or appointed persons to whose opinion the assembly is presumed to give weight regarding the board’s or committee’s concerns.

while 51:12 says

Quote

If the person presenting the report [of the board or committee] is not a member of the assembly or for any other reason does not make the required motion to implement the recommendations as just described, any member of the assembly can do so; but the motion must then be seconded.

But, even if the motion is not made by the reporting member, doesn't the logic still apply that "the motion’s introduction has been directed by a majority vote within the board or committee," and, therefore, a second should not be required?

Say, for example, that the committee chair (a member of the assembly) gives the report which includes three recommendations, but the chair disagrees with the third recommendation. The committee chair moves recommendations one and two, which do not require a second. Another member of the committee (who is also a member of the assembly) moves recommendation three, but this requires a second. Why should the motions be treated differently?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/11/2022 at 12:02 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Another member of the committee (who is also a member of the assembly) moves recommendation three, but this requires a second. Why should the motions be treated differently?

I agree that the distinction is a thin one, but by positing that the member of the assembly who makes the motion is also a member of the committee, you have (intentionally, I assume) somewhat obfuscated it even further.

The rule is saying that when a member of the assembly makes a motion because that member is in favor of the committee's recommendation, this is not the same thing as a motion made on behalf of the committee itself. That is what the sentence immediately preceding your second quotation says: "No second is required in these cases, since the motion is made on behalf of the board or committee (see 4:11)." (51:11)

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/11/2022 at 12:21 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree that the distinction is a thin one, but by positing that the member of the assembly who makes the motion is also a member of the committee, you have (intentionally, I assume) somewhat obfuscated it even further.

The rule is saying that when a member of the assembly makes a motion because that member is in favor of the committee's recommendation, this is not the same thing as a motion made on behalf of the committee itself. That is what the sentence immediately preceding your second quotation says: "No second is required in these cases, since the motion is made on behalf of the board or committee (see 4:11)." (51:11)

 

Yes, the distinction is thin, but it would make more sense to me if it was based on the motion itself, rather than the maker. That is, a motion to implement recommendation three in the committee's report should not require a seconder, no matter who makes it.

The concept appears to be of extremely and unnecessarily limited utility when it is restricted only to the reporting member of the committee.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, the duty of the reporting member is to accurately reflect the report and to make such motions as the committee directed.  The fact that the reporting member does not favor one of the recommended motions does not mean he can simply omit it.  If he cannot do so in good conscience, he should ask the committee to appoint a different member to report.

A member who was not directed to speak for the committee, does not speak for the committee.

[Atul Kapur]

Maybe not, but if it is the motion as recommended by the committee, then what is the benefit of requiring a second?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/17/2022 at 1:48 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Maybe not, but if it is the motion as recommended by the committee, then what is the benefit of requiring a second?

If it is?  And how do know if it is the same motion? Because the mover is pretty sure it is?  And would checking to make sure be completed before you could say "Second"?

[Atul Kapur]

You will note that my examples were motions to implement recommendation three of the report.

The judgement of the chair would be the primary way to know that it is a motion to implement the  recommendation in the report. If the presiding officer is satisfied that it is, then the  chair would state the motion without awaiting a seconder.

[Gary Novosielski]

I concede your point.

But it fails to reach what is, in my view, the central question, viz., how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  😇

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

42

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/19/2022 at 4:56 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

42

Ah.  Good.  Well, glad that's settled at last.