husband and wife both on the same board/ Can one make a motion and the other 2nd it?

[celia]

My husband and I are on the same board of directors. I made a motion and he 2nd it. The president said that is forbidden as we are married. I think he is way wrong. He said we are not to ever do that again. When we serve on the board we are 2 sepetate people not to be viewed as a married couple but as 2 different directors.

[Larry Cisar]

My husband and I are on the same board of directors. I made a motion and he 2nd it. The president said that is forbidden as we are married. I think he is way wrong. He said we are not to ever do that again. When we serve on the board we are 2 sepetate people not to be viewed as a married couple but as 2 different directors.

You are correct. Next time he objects, ask him for the page number. He won't be able to give it as there is none.

[Guest Margaret]

You are correct. Next time he objects, ask him for the page number. He won't be able to give it as there is none.

That's assuming, of course, that there is nothing in the bylaws about spouses on the same board. Robert's Rules has no such prohibition, but individual bylaws would over-rule Robert's Rules.

[hmtcastle]

That's assuming, of course, that there is nothing in the bylaws about spouses on the same board. Robert's Rules has no such prohibition, but individual bylaws would over-rule Robert's Rules.

Well, this husband and wife are already on the board. The question was about the wife seconding the husband's motion.

[Mr. J!]

Who it is who seconds a motion, and even whether a motion receives a second in a board of about a dozen members or less, is not nearly as important as your president appears to believe. See RONR p. 34 - 35.

[Guest Serge L. Mansur]

I am pretty certain Robert's RONR does not disallow this, I would suggest it not be done. It is just an invitation for trouble.

[Chris Harrison]

I am pretty certain Robert's RONR does not disallow this, I would suggest it not be done. It is just an invitation for trouble.

Maybe so but the problem belongs with those who have the problem and not Celia and her husband.

[George Mervosh]

I am pretty certain Robert's RONR does not disallow this, I would suggest it not be done. It is just an invitation for trouble.

It would be trouble for Mrs. M. and I.......She always wins when we disagree 30 years of losing isn't fun

[jstackpo]

"Mrs. M and me". Where are standards?!?

[J. J.]

"Mrs. M and me". Where are standards?!?

Where is the "the?"

[hmtcastle]

Where is the "the?"

Which raises the question of editing a post after there's been a reply. I think we all appreciate the ability to go back right away and fix a typo but, once someone has replied to a post, I don't think that post should be editable.

Not that Mr. Stackpole (or anyone else) would do this but he could, for example, edit his post to insert the "the" and make J.J.'s reply look, well, confused.

[Josh Martin]

I am pretty certain Robert's RONR does not disallow this, I would suggest it not be done. It is just an invitation for trouble.

I strongly disagree. A member who feels that a motion should be considered has every right to second it. The fact that the motion maker is the member's spouse is immaterial. Just as in all other cases, the member should make such decisions based on the merits of the motion itself, and not on the identity of the motion maker. Celia had it exactly right when she said:

When we serve on the board we are 2 sepetate people not to be viewed as a married couple but as 2 different directors.

Of course, as noted by Mr. J!, if this is a small board (about a dozen members or fewer), motions don't need to be seconded at all, which would make the whole argument even sillier.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I think we all appreciate the ability to go back right away and fix a typo

That is a compelling reason to refrain from posting at all, if the post's content is only for the sake of spelling, grammar, syntax, number of words, missing "nots", etc.

• Each post should focus on the parliamentary issue.

• Insults should not be allowed.

• Rhetorical questions, and Socratic questions, ought not be replied to, except by the original poster, as the original poster understands the logical point or the emphasized idea, or the illogical connection between contradictory statements.

[Guest Margaret]

Well, this husband and wife are already on the board. The question was about the wife seconding the husband's motion.

I'd go back and amend my posting to say "That's assuming, of course, that there is nothing in the bylaws about rules about spouses on the same board. Robert's Rules has no such prohibition, but individual bylaws would over-rule Robert's Rules.", but don't wish to amend a replied to post...

[Rev Ed]

I can understand why the President would think this way - it is a matter of appearance. It may appear that you and your husband are trying to force an issue rather than trying to do a good job. The President may be wrong by RONR, but it can make sense in a common sense point of view.

[Trina]

I can understand why the President would think this way - it is a matter of appearance. It may appear that you and your husband are trying to force an issue rather than trying to do a good job. The President may be wrong by RONR, but it can make sense in a common sense point of view.

Whatever the President thinks, he has no business, as chair, to voice any such opinion. If the husband and wife have been elected as two members of the board, that's what they are... period and end of story. If the membership didn't want them both there, the membership could have voted differently.

[hmtcastle]

but don't wish to amend a replied to post...

That's admirable. Let's hope the administrators make it a rule.

[Dan Honemann]

That's admirable. Let's hope the administrators make it a rule.

The rule is that you can't change what I say (correctly) that you said.

[hmtcastle]

The rule is that you can't change what I say (correctly) that you said.

But you (and I don't mean you) can change what you said.

It's analogous to amending approved minutes. The original text should remain inviolate.

[Dan Honemann]

But you (and I don't mean you) can change what you said.

It's analogous to amending approved minutes. The original text should remain inviolate.

But I cannot deny that, in your response, you correctly quoted what I said.

[Trina]

But you (and I don't mean you) can change what you said.

It's analogous to amending approved minutes. The original text should remain inviolate.

My interpretation of Mr. Honemann's comment is that once someone else quotes the original text, the original poster has no access to modify the quoted portion. That's because it's inside someone else's post, which the original poster cannot edit.

Thus, if you see a gaffe that you wish to immortalize before the original poster fixes it, quote quickly.