Recording name of person making a motion

[RGM]

Our organization is having a discussion about whether or not the name of a person making a motion has to be recorded in the minutes of Board meetings. We are a small Board, 6 members. Please advise.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes. RONR (12th ed.) 48:5.

[Guest RGM]

I am familiar with 48:5. The discussion revolves around the word "should". RONR does not say "must" which indicates it is a recommendation, not a requirement. Some on this small board do not think the names of people making motions need to be included in minutes. So I am looking for clarification based on the use of the word "should" and it's legal definition.

[Gary Novosielski]

Should means that it is not mandatory but that it should be recorded.  I think it's a fair question why some people on your board don't want to do things the way they should be done.

But if they're insistent, the good news for them is that since this is not a hard and fast rule, there is no need to suspend it if they don't want their names recorded.  So a two-thirds vote would not be required.  The assembly may decide what goes into the minutes (or what doesn't) by a majority vote.  If the "some people" do not constitute a majority, they don't get to decide.

Edited February 18, 2024 at 12:02 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Rob Elsman]

The whole book is about what should be done, so what is the problem? Who wants to do what should not be done? Isn't this line of argument a little silly? Why have a parliamentary authority and then ignore it?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/17/2024 at 5:51 PM, Guest RGM said:

I am familiar with 48:5. The discussion revolves around the word "should". RONR does not say "must" which indicates it is a recommendation, not a requirement. Some on this small board do not think the names of people making motions need to be included in minutes. So I am looking for clarification based on the use of the word "should" and it's legal definition.

In the alternative, if the board wishes to not include the names of the motion makers in the minutes, they could simply adopt their own rule on the subject rather than arguing over "the use of the word "should" and it's legal definition."

"To modify the rules governing what is regularly to be included in the minutes requires adoption of a special rule of order, although a majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting." RONR (12th ed.) 48:2

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/18/2024 at 9:31 AM, Josh Martin said:

In the alternative, if the board wishes to not include the names of the motion makers in the minutes, they could simply adopt their own rule on the subject rather than arguing over "the use of the word "should" and it's legal definition."

Can a subordinate board adopt a special rule such as this?

[Josh Martin]

On 2/18/2024 at 8:36 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Can a subordinate board adopt a special rule such as this?

Well, then I guess I do have to grapple with the meaning of the word "should."  

So far as I can tell from the word's common usage and the way it is used in RONR, it would seem to me that "should" is context-dependent. There is no doubt that in some cases where it is used in RONR, "should" is clearly used to indicate a suggestion and best practice, not a requirement. In other cases, however, it seems to be more in the nature of a requirement. In some cases, it seems that the word "should" is used in situations where the rule itself is context-dependent, and requires the application of judgment by the chair, such that a stronger "must" would be inappropriate. For example:

"It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business. Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are repeatedly using parliamentary forms for dilatory purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are not in order—but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. The chair should always be courteous and fair, but at the same time he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition." RONR (12th ed.) 39:4

"In connection with the methods of voting by voice, by rising, or by show of hands, as explained in Chapter II, if the chair is in doubt on a voice vote or a vote by show of hands, he should retake it as a rising vote and, if necessary to satisfy himself of the result, he should obtain a count of it." RONR (12th ed.) 45:14

I don't think in either of these cases it is reasonable to interpret these rules as a mere "suggestion" for the chair. Rather, "should" appears to be used rather than "must" because the rule requires the application of the chair's judgment based upon the specific facts of the situation. These are not rules that can be uniformly applied.

I am inclined to think that the use of the word "should" in 48:5 is used in this manner. There may be particular instances where it is not appropriate (or not possible) to record the name of the motion maker in the minutes, particularly in a small board. For example, the motion may be assumed by the chair, so there is really no "motion maker" to record. Conceivably, there may also be instances where the motion maker is known, but the assembly determines that in a particular instance, it is not appropriate to record the name of the motion maker, such as if the motion was amended in such a manner that it was hostile to the intent of the original motion maker. So I think that the rule allows for some leeway and the application of the chair's (and the assembly's) judgment as applied in a particular situation.

I do not think, however, that the rule as written permits the assembly to ignore it entirely. I would say the rule requires the assembly to generally record the name of the motion maker in the minutes.

As a result, a rule overriding this entirely and providing that the name of the motion maker should not be recorded in the minutes would conflict with the parliamentary authority and, therefore, cannot be adopted by a subordinate board. If a subordinate board desires such a rule, it would need to make a recommendation to the membership on this matter. On the other hand, a board which is not subordinate to a higher authority is free to adopt a rule on this subject.

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above... A board that is not a part of a society can adopt its own rules, provided that they do not conflict with anything in the legal instrument under which the board is constituted." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

Edited February 18, 2024 at 02:56 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/18/2024 at 9:55 AM, Josh Martin said:

Well, then I guess I do have to grapple with the meaning of the word "should."  

So far as I can tell from the word's common usage and the way it is used in RONR, it would seem to me that "should" is context-dependent. There is no doubt that in some cases where it is used in RONR, "should" is clearly used to indicate a suggestion and best practice, not a requirement. In other cases, however, it seems to be more in the nature of a requirement. In some cases, it seems that the word "should" is used in situations where the rule itself is context-dependent, and requires the application of judgment by the chair, such that a stronger "must" would be inappropriate. For example:

"It is the duty of the presiding officer to prevent members from misusing the legitimate forms of motions, or abusing the privilege of renewing certain motions, merely to obstruct business. Whenever the chair becomes convinced that one or more members are repeatedly using parliamentary forms for dilatory purposes, he should either not recognize these members or he should rule that such motions are not in order—but he should never adopt such a course merely to speed up business, and he should never permit his personal feelings to affect his judgment in such cases. If the chair only suspects that a motion is not made in good faith, he should give the maker of the motion the benefit of the doubt. The chair should always be courteous and fair, but at the same time he should be firm in protecting the assembly from imposition." RONR (12th ed.) 39:4

"In connection with the methods of voting by voice, by rising, or by show of hands, as explained in Chapter II, if the chair is in doubt on a voice vote or a vote by show of hands, he should retake it as a rising vote and, if necessary to satisfy himself of the result, he should obtain a count of it." RONR (12th ed.) 45:14

I don't think in either of these cases it is reasonable to interpret these rules as a mere "suggestion" for the chair. Rather, "should" appears to be used rather than "must" because the rule requires the application of the chair's judgment based upon the specific facts of the situation. These are not rules that can be uniformly applied.

I am inclined to think that the use of the word "should" in 48:5 is used in this manner. There may be particular instances where it is not appropriate (or not possible) to record the name of the motion maker in the minutes, particularly in a small board. For example, the motion may be assumed by the chair, so there is really no "motion maker" to record. Conceivably, there may also be instances where the motion maker is known, but the assembly determines that in a particular instance, it is not appropriate to record the name of the motion maker, such as if the motion was amended in such a manner that it was hostile to the intent of the original motion maker. So I think that the rule allows for some leeway and the application of the chair's (and the assembly's) judgment as applied in a particular situation.

I do not think, however, that the rule as written permits the assembly to ignore it entirely. I would say the rule requires the assembly to generally record the name of the motion maker in the minutes.

As a result, a rule overriding this entirely and providing that the name of the motion maker should not be recorded in the minutes would conflict with the parliamentary authority and, therefore, cannot be adopted by a subordinate board. If a subordinate board desires such a rule, it would need to make a recommendation to the membership on this matter. On the other hand, a board which is not subordinate to a higher authority is free to adopt a rule on this subject.

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above... A board that is not a part of a society can adopt its own rules, provided that they do not conflict with anything in the legal instrument under which the board is constituted." RONR (12th ed.) 49:15

In the usual case of a subordinate board, by adopting RONR as its parliamentary authority, the membership has instructed the board on what it should do.   So I think without going out on a limb, I can state:  That's what the board should do.  

[Joshua Katz]

As the great philosopher Panayot Buchvarov once said, why ought one to do what one ought to do? Because one ought to do it.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/19/2024 at 3:10 AM, Joshua Katz said:

As the great philosopher Panayot Buchvarov once said, why ought one to do what one ought to do? Because one ought to do it.

It's hard to argue with that, but by a two-thirds vote one could certainly suspend it.

[Guest RGM]

I want to thank everyone who replied to my post. Your advice has made this question much clearer. Thank you for your help.

[J. J.]

A just love ambiguity (this site needs a sarcasm font).