Multiple Authors Still Requiring a second to be heard

[Drew Stewart]

Can someone provide me with the RR reference that allows the chair of a meeting to require a second on a proposal that already has multiple authors? Is it explicitly explained or just implied?

[Atul Kapur]

RONR (12th ed.) 4:9-4:14, paying particular attention to 4:12 and 4:11.

By "multiple authors" are you referring to a committee? Or is this a convention where motions are submitted in advance and multiple people/groups have submitted exactly the same motion?

If there are multiple people who support the motion, is there a problem preventing one of them from seconding the motion? Or is this a question of efficiency and saving time?

Edited April 17, 2023 at 10:05 PM by Atul Kapur

[Drew Stewart]

Thanks Atul! This is for a convention where motions are submitted in advance. I agree that 4:11 is clear regarding committees. Would you see it as up to the discretion of the chair to interpret 4:11 in such a way that would require committee-submitted amendments to have a second to be heard?

The main issue is amendments with multiple authors (not on a committee) are required to have seconds to be heard. Both authors are members in good standing. Is it allowable to interpret RR in this way?

[Gary Novosielski]

According to RONR, the purpose of a second is to ensure that more than one person wants to consider the question.  That's why seconds are not required from any committee of more than one--in order for a majority to report a motion out of committee, at least two people would have voted Yes.

So it seems to me that a motion with explicit cosponsors listed on it would not require a second at all.  I would consider the chair's insistence on a second to be frivolous.

Or, where the authors of a motion are listed, include a line below saying Seconded by: and put one of the names there.

Edited April 18, 2023 at 12:06 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

On 4/17/2023 at 3:40 PM, Drew Stewart said:

Can someone provide me with the RR reference that allows the chair of a meeting to require a second on a proposal that already has multiple authors? Is it explicitly explained or just implied?

There is nothing in RONR which explicitly exempts motions which have been submitted in advance by multiple members from the requirement of a second. As a consequence, I am inclined to think that a second is required in such circumstances, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

With that said, RONR is clear that the requirement of a second is more of a guide than a hard and fast rule. The chair does have the latitude to state the question on a motion without a second, provided no member objects. It certainly may be appropriate to do so in these circumstances.

I'm not entirely certain why this matters all that much one way or the other. If the motion has multiple supporters already lined up, one assumes the motion will promptly be seconded.

On 4/17/2023 at 6:13 PM, Drew Stewart said:

I agree that 4:11 is clear regarding committees. Would you see it as up to the discretion of the chair to interpret 4:11 in such a way that would require committee-submitted amendments to have a second to be heard

No, but that has nothing to do with the present question.

On 4/17/2023 at 6:13 PM, Drew Stewart said:

The main issue is amendments with multiple authors (not on a committee) are required to have seconds to be heard. Both authors are members in good standing. Is it allowable to interpret RR in this way?

In my view, it is indeed allowable, and correct, to interpret RONR in this way.

To be clear, only one member has to make the motion, and only one member has to second the motion, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise. So if the motion has two authors, just have one of them make the motion and one of them second the motion.

On 4/17/2023 at 7:02 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

According to RONR, the purpose of a second is to ensure that more than one person wants to consider the question.  That's why seconds are not required from any committee of more than one--in order for a majority to report a motion out of committee, at least two people would have voted Yes.

So it seems to me that a motion with explicit cosponsors listed on it would not require a second at all.  I would consider the chair's insistence on a second to be frivolous.

I disagree. If it was intended to exempt all motions with multiple members supporting the motion in advance from the requirement of a second, then the text would say so. The rules specifically provide that motions coming from committees or boards consisting of more than one member are exempt from the requirement of a second.

In my view, a motion is not exempt from the requirement of a second on the grounds that the motion has "multiple authors," unless the rules of the organization or the convention so provide.

Seconding a motion simply consists of a member shouting out "Second!", so I do not view this requirement as unduly onerous.

Edited April 18, 2023 at 12:15 AM by Josh Martin

[Drew Stewart]

Thanks everyone for the conversation. This is a convention where members submit proposals in advance and often are unable to attend the actual convention. Traditionally, the purpose of having 2 authors was to allow the proposal to be considered seconded and before the body. The chair has recently interpreted this differently and is requiring a second. It sounds so far as though responses are split on this. 
 

[Richard Brown]

On 4/17/2023 at 8:05 PM, Drew Stewart said:

This is a convention where members submit proposals in advance and often are unable to attend the actual convention.

Therein lies the problem, or at least part of it. Under the rules  in RONR and most if not all other parliamentary authorities, motions are made by the mover stating the motion verbally at a meeting. RONR does not contemplate motions being made simply by submitting them in advance in writing. That is more akin to giving notice of an intent to make a motion.

Technically, unless your rules provide otherwise, under the rules in RONR a motion cannot be made by submitting it in advance. Someone must actually make the motion or move the adoption of a motion at a meeting. If someone who wants to make a motion to be considered at a meeting cannot attend the meeting, that Person should find someone else to make the motion.  

For this same reason, a motion which is included in the agenda is not considered as having been made just because it is on the agenda. At the meeting, someone still has to actually verbally make the motion either by stating it in full or, perhaps, by referencing the written motion that has been previously furnished to the members or is included in the agenda. If a proposed motion is listed on the agenda, and when that item is reached on the agenda no one moves the adoption of the motion, the motion dies as having never been made.

Perhaps in this case the organization should adopt a special rule of order or a special convention rule that motions submitted in advance in writing by more than one member are considered as having been seconded (or not requiring a second) if that is the way the organization wants to continue doing business.
 

 

Edited April 18, 2023 at 02:11 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical corrections

[Atul Kapur]

Never mind.

Edited April 18, 2023 at 02:30 AM by Atul Kapur
Got too long and complicated

[Gary Novosielski]

On 4/17/2023 at 8:12 PM, Josh Martin said:

I disagree. If it was intended to exempt all motions with multiple members supporting the motion in advance from the requirement of a second, then the text would say so. The rules specifically provide that motions coming from committees or boards consisting of more than one member are exempt from the requirement of a second.

Thanks, Josh.

I added a sentence to my answer which may have been after your reply.  I suggested that on the written motion submitted with multiple authors/cosponsors, a line explicitly saying Seconded by: be added, assuming the form allows for such flexibility.  

With respect to the text highlighted above, I submit that one reason the text did not say so is that there is no text in RONR anticipating multiple movers for a single motion.  The word mover is not found in the plural form anywhere in the Work. The closest we get to that sort of event is a motion  out of a committee.  

So I have to grant that the text does not say anything about this. But do you doubt for a moment that if there were a mention of the practice in some societies that signed motions in writing require the sponsorship of more than one member, that this would be one of the motions that do not require a second?  Given the attention to detail exhibited by the authorship team in exempting from a required second any motion to grant a permission to another member, I have no such doubt.

Admittedly this would not be an onerous requirement, but still...

Anyway, as always, thanks for your views.

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 4/17/2023 at 9:05 PM, Drew Stewart said:

Thanks everyone for the conversation. This is a convention where members submit proposals in advance and often are unable to attend the actual convention. Traditionally, the purpose of having 2 authors was to allow the proposal to be considered seconded and before the body. The chair has recently interpreted this differently and is requiring a second. It sounds so far as though responses are split on this. 
 

The answer to your question is almost certainly to be found in your convention's standing rules. In this connection, I suggest that you read what is said in RONR, 12th ed., concerning Resolution Committees, particularly 59:72-73, and especially 59:80. You will see that under virtually every arrangement provided for the advance submission of proposed resolutions with "multiple authors", the resolution is regarded as having already been moved and seconded when reported to the convention by the committee.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/17/2023 at 9:46 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I suggested that on the written motion submitted with multiple authors/cosponsors, a line explicitly saying Seconded by: be added, assuming the form allows for such flexibility.  

I do not think this resolves anything. So far as RONR is concerned, the fact that a written motion has been submitted with multiple authors/cosponsors does not, in itself, alleviate the requirement for the motion to actually be made and seconded at the meeting. RONR does not permit motions to be made or seconded in writing.

I concur with Mr. Honemann, however, that the convention standing rules may well provide that under these circumstances, the resolutions are regarded as already having been moved and seconded.

On 4/17/2023 at 9:46 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

So I have to grant that the text does not say anything about this. But do you doubt for a moment that if there were a mention of the practice in some societies that signed motions in writing require the sponsorship of more than one member, that this would be one of the motions that do not require a second?  Given the attention to detail exhibited by the authorship team in exempting from a required second any motion to grant a permission to another member, I have no such doubt.

I would point out that the situation here involves a case in which the members submitting the proposals "often are unable to attend the actual convention." I think that distinguishes the situation somewhat from a motion to grant a permission to another member.

Nonetheless, I do not disagree that a convention may well determine that it is reasonable to provide that all motions which are submitted in advance under the organization's required rules for submission shall be considered at the meeting as if they were moved and seconded.

On 4/17/2023 at 8:05 PM, Drew Stewart said:

Thanks everyone for the conversation. This is a convention where members submit proposals in advance and often are unable to attend the actual convention. Traditionally, the purpose of having 2 authors was to allow the proposal to be considered seconded and before the body. The chair has recently interpreted this differently and is requiring a second. It sounds so far as though responses are split on this. 

If there is a lack of clarity in this regard, then the convention may wish to clarify this matter in the convention standing rules.

I can see reasonable arguments for both cases. Certainly, I can see the argument expressed by yourself and Mr. Novosielski that the motion has been supported by at least two members, and that this is in some manner comparable to the rules regarding motions made on behalf of a committee.

On the other hand, we are told that such motions are often submitted by persons "unable to attend the actual convention." As a result, one might argue that motions should not be considered unless at least two persons who are actually present at the convention wish to consider them.

Edited April 18, 2023 at 02:29 PM by Josh Martin