Motions from Committees Do Not Require Seconds

[Wright Stuff]

When a committee chair or member makes a report to the delegates at an annual convention, the motion to adopt the report (if it is one that needs to be adopted) is customarily made by the person making the report at the end of the report. Assume that the person making the report does not make the motion to adopt the report, and the convention chair calls out, "Is there a motion to adopt the report?" A delegate (not a member of the committee making the report) obtains the floor and moves the report's adoption. Does this motion require a second? Where is the answer in RONR? 

The closest reference I can find is 7:2(4):

"Whether it requires a second. (A main motion does. Whenever it is stated in this book that a certain motion “must” be seconded, or “requires” a second, the precise meaning is as explained in 4:9–14, and the requirement does not apply when the motion is made by direction of a board or committee.)" [Emphasis added.]

The motion was made by a member of the delegation who is not on a board or the committee. There is not a problem that needs to be solved. All is well. It is helpful to understand how to answer these hair-splitting questions. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/8/2024 at 5:29 PM, Wright Stuff said:

When a committee chair or member makes a report to the delegates at an annual convention, the motion to adopt the report (if it is one that needs to be adopted) is customarily made by the person making the report at the end of the report. Assume that the person making the report does not make the motion to adopt the report, and the convention chair calls out, "Is there a motion to adopt the report?" A delegate (not a member of the committee making the report) obtains the floor and moves the report's adoption. Does this motion require a second? Where is the answer in RONR? 

If the motion is made by someone other than the reporting member, the motion does require a second.

"If the person presenting the report 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. Or, when the proper motion is a matter of clear-cut procedure and must necessarily be introduced to resolve the case, the chair may sometimes expedite matters by assuming the motion—that is, stating the question on it without waiting for it to be made." RONR (12th ed.) 51:12

RONR does, however, permit great latitude to the chair in applying the requirement of a second, and I think the situation described is certainly an appropriate case where the chair could state the question on the motion without a second (if there is no objection), or even assume the motion, rather than asking if there is a motion to adopt the report.

"The requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance whether to state the question on the motion, thus placing it before the assembly. Its purpose is to prevent time from being consumed by the assembly's having to dispose of a motion that only one person wants to see introduced.

In handling routine motions, less attention is paid to the requirement of a second. If the chair is certain that a motion meets with wide approval but members are slow in seconding it, he can state the question without waiting for a second. However, until debate has begun in such a case—or, if there is no debate, until the chair begins to take the vote and any member has voted—a point of order (see 23) can be raised that the motion has not been seconded; and then the chair must proceed formally and ask if there is a second. Such a point of order should not be made only for the sake of form, if it is clear that more than one member wishes to take up the motion. After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded—even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement—the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion's adoption." RONR (12th ed.) 4:12-13

Edited April 8, 2024 at 10:38 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

@Josh Martin, thank you for the comprehensive answer and for the cites. I really need to get better at finding things in the book. It's not from lack of effort.

[Rob Elsman]

Assuming that the committee had more than one member, I agree with Mr. Martin. Indeed, I think the chair should have just assumed the necessary motion and immediately stated the question.

[Wright Stuff]

On 4/9/2024 at 9:04 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Assuming that the committee had more than one member, I agree with Mr. Martin. Indeed, I think the chair should have just assumed the necessary motion and immediately stated the question.

The chair announced that no second was necessary since the motion came from the committee. However, the motion did not come from the committee; it came from a person in the delegation who was not on the committee. No second was made, but the process continued as if it had. No harm, no foul. She sort of stated the question and called for a vote, which passed.

While the question seems to be a very minor technicality, RONR is made up of many, many technicalities. When the handling of those technicalities is unclear, it's helpful to ask here for clarity. 

I actually wonder if the need for a second really has any value. I've seen a motion fail for lack of a second, but considering how much time is consumed asking for seconds on almost every motion (not including the organizations that record the name of the person making the second), the time spent defeating a motion that cannot attract a second seems minimal compared with the time spent asking for seconds. 

[Josh Martin]

On 4/9/2024 at 11:21 AM, Wright Stuff said:

The chair announced that no second was necessary since the motion came from the committee. However, the motion did not come from the committee; it came from a person in the delegation who was not on the committee. No second was made, but the process continued as if it had. No harm, no foul. She sort of stated the question and called for a vote, which passed.

While the question seems to be a very minor technicality, RONR is made up of many, many technicalities. When the handling of those technicalities is unclear, it's helpful to ask here for clarity. 

I certainly agree that there was "no harm, no foul."

Strictly speaking, the motion in question required a second, but if I were the chair, I would probably state the question on the motion without a second, or even skip the step of asking for a motion to approve the report and simply assumed the motion, stating the question on approving the report. So I am not bothered by the lack of a second here. (And in any event, a Point of Order concerning the lack of a second must be raised promptly.)

On 4/9/2024 at 11:21 AM, Wright Stuff said:

I actually wonder if the need for a second really has any value. I've seen a motion fail for lack of a second, but considering how much time is consumed asking for seconds on almost every motion (not including the organizations that record the name of the person making the second), the time spent defeating a motion that cannot attract a second seems minimal compared with the time spent asking for seconds. 

I think it's a fair question, particularly if it is the case in your organization that considerable time is consumed asking for seconds for almost every motion. (I would note that this does not need to necessarily be the case - members need not wait for the chair to ask for a second. It is permissible (and common in many assemblies) for a member to immediately second a motion, which saves a great deal of time.) The chair might also take heed of what is said in 4:12-13 and "pay less attention" to the requirement of a second for routine motions.

The purpose of the requirement for a second is to save time, by preventing the assembly from having to consider motions only one member wishes to see discussed. In most assemblies, I think it achieves this purpose. But if it is the case for your organization that this rule is having the opposite of the intended effect and is forcing the assembly to consume more time, the assembly is certainly free to adopt a special rule of order (or perhaps a convention standing rule at each convention) providing that seconds are not required. Or if the assembly balks at this suggestion, a workable compromise might be that only certain motions require a second.

Edited April 9, 2024 at 04:35 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Martin that since the motion to adopt the report was NOT made by the reporting committee member (or, as far as we know, by any committee member), the motion technically required a second regardless of how many members were on the committee.  However, as RONR makes clear, the lack of a second becomes immaterial once debate or voting begins.