Can motion which dies on floor for lack of a second be brought up again in the same meeting?

[Guest organization member]

A motion was made and it died on the floor for lack of a second. Can this issue be raised again during the same meeting after it died on the floor?

[J. J.]

A motion was made and it died on the floor for lack of a second. Can this issue be raised again during the same meeting after it died on the floor?

Yes, the motion was not before the assembly (p. 34).

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, the motion was not before the assembly (p. 34).

I understand the reasoning. But while §38, on the Renewal of Motions, exempts a motion that has been withdrawn by its maker from the restrictions on renewabilty, it does not mention motions that died for lack of a second. The reason given in the case of a withdrawal is that the assembly was never asked to decide the question.

But in the case of a motion not seconded, the assembly did effectively make a decision. It decided, by its silence (unanimous dissent?) that the motion was not only unworthy of adoption, it was unworthy even of discussion. The case could therefore be made that the assembly should be protected from having to make this decision again on essentially the same question, which is the basic principle of nonrenewabilty. I think it would be reasonable to require that the motion be changed enough to present a substantially different question before it is offered again.

Still, a wise chair might pause briefly before ruling a renewal of this kind out of order, just to see if someone takes the opportunity to second it this time.

I don't think it's crystal clear either way on this one, nor is either way a real problem, frankly, but I think it would be nice if RONR mentioned this case explicitly.

On the other hand, this tends to be fairly self-limiting. A motion dying for lack of a second often results in a maker dying of embarrassment, and probably unlikely to renew the exact same motion for that reason.

[Josh Martin]

But in the case of a motion not seconded, the assembly did effectively make a decision. It decided, by its silence (unanimous dissent?) that the motion was not only unworthy of adoption, it was unworthy even of discussion. The case could therefore be made that the assembly should be protected from having to make this decision again on essentially the same question, which is the basic principle of nonrenewabilty. I think it would be reasonable to require that the motion be changed enough to present a substantially different question before it is offered again.

Still, a wise chair might pause briefly before ruling a renewal of this kind out of order, just to see if someone takes the opportunity to second it this time.

I don't think it's crystal clear either way on this one, nor is either way a real problem, frankly, but I think it would be nice if RONR mentioned this case explicitly.

Your philosophical argument is interesting, but I think the relevant rule is clear. The rule is that "No motion can be renewed during the same session in which it has already been before the assembly, except where its renewal is permitted by a specific rule; and such a rule always implies circumstances under which the motion has in some respect become a different question." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 326, lines 3-7) Since the motion has not been before the assembly, the prohibition does not apply.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Your philosophical argument is interesting, but I think the relevant rule is clear.

The rule is that "No motion can be renewed during the same session in which it has already been before the assembly, except where its renewal is permitted by a specific rule; and such a rule always implies circumstances under which the motion has in some respect become a different question." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 326, lines 3-7)

Since the motion has not been before the assembly, the prohibition does not apply.

Are you sure?

RONR's definition of "main motion" is this:

A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly. [p. 95]

The RONR team has asserted that an unseconded motion is (or can be) a main motion (if moved when no main motion is already pending).

Therefore, there are circumstances when an unseconded motion is one whose introduction brings business before the assembly.

Since the unseconded motion brought business before the assembly, your assertion, "... the motion has not been before the assembly [therefore] the prohibition does not apply," conflicts with the RONR authorship team.

So your citation of page 326 won't apply.

Agree?

Ponder:

Q. For an unseconded motion, when is it before the assembly?

[Josh Martin]

Are you sure?

RONR's definition of "main motion" is this:

A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly. [p. 95]

The RONR team has asserted that an unseconded motion is (or can be) a main motion (if moved when no main motion is already pending).

Therefore, there are circumstances when an unseconded motion is one whose introduction brings business before the assembly.

Since the unseconded motion brought business before the assembly, your assertion, "... the motion has not been before the assembly [therefore] the prohibition does not apply," conflicts with the RONR authorship team.

So your citation of page 326 won't apply.

Agree?

A motion which dies for lack of a second has not brought business before the assembly. Certainly there are cases in which a motion comes before the assembly without a second, but that is not what this question is about.

Ponder:

Q. For an unseconded motion, when is it before the assembly?

A motion (regardless of whether it is seconded) is before the assembly when it is stated by the chair, which is made quite clear in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 31, lines 25-27; pg. 36, lines 7-9. A motion which dies for the lack of a second never reaches this stage, and is not before the assembly. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 34, lines 21-24)

As for the RONR, 10th ed., pg. 95, lines 2-3 citation, it seems clear that in order for RONR to be consistent with itself, "introduction" refers to the full process by which a main motion is brought before the assembly, not merely the making of the motion.

[jstackpo]

Hmm...

Suppose a motion is made and not seconded -- the A-Team notes that this information (what was "done" in a sort of negative sense) goes into the minutes. Fine: "Mr. D.H. moved that ... The motion did not come before the assembly for lack of a second."

Then later in the meeting the motion is made again, seconded this time, and eventually properly disposed of. This, obviously, goes in the minutes.

It is necessary to include both references to the motion in the minutes?

[Tim Wynn]

Hmm...

Suppose a motion is made and not seconded -- the A-Team notes that this information (what was "done" in a sort of negative sense) goes into the minutes. Fine: "Mr. D.H. moved that ... The motion did not come before the assembly for lack of a second."

Then later in the meeting the motion is made again, seconded this time, and eventually properly disposed of. This, obviously, goes in the minutes.

It is necessary to include both references to the motion in the minutes?

Yes.

[Tim Wynn]

Ponder:

Q. For an unseconded motion, when is it before the assembly?

When it is stated by the chair.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, the motion was not before the assembly (p. 34).

I agree with J. J.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes.

Sure. I agree.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I agree with J. J.

I see agreement.

Would you (all) agree that

any motion whose introduction brought business before the assembly

cannot simultaneously

(a.) never had been before the assembly

... yet nonetheless ...

(b.) brought Business B before the assembly?

How did Business B get before the assembly, without the motion itself being before the assembly?

***

To use an example:

Are you asserting, the business, "That we paint the barn red," was, at some time, before the assembly, even as the motion itself never was before the assembly?

As a main motion, wasn't anything "before the assembly"?

Wasn't anything "brought"? Even for a micro-second?

[Rob Elsman]

I see agreement.

Would you (all) agree that

any motion whose introduction brought business before the assembly

cannot simultaneously

(a.) never had been before the assembly

... yet nonetheless ...

(b.) brought Business B before the assembly?

How did Business B get before the assembly, without the motion itself being before the assembly?

***

To use an example:

Are you asserting, the business, "That we paint the barn red," was, at some time, before the assembly, even as the motion itself never was before the assembly?

As a main motion, wasn't anything "before the assembly"?

Wasn't anything "brought"? Even for a micro-second?

J. J. has already cited the proper place--"Since there is no second, the motion is not before this meeting."

[Josh Martin]

Would you (all) agree that

any motion whose introduction brought business before the assembly

cannot simultaneously

(a.) never had been before the assembly

... yet nonetheless ...

(b.) brought Business B before the assembly?

Sure.

How did Business B get before the assembly, without the motion itself being before the assembly?

Business B never got before the assembly.

If you're still hung up on the pg. 95 citation, I'm sticking with what I said previously.

As for the RONR, 10th ed., pg. 95, lines 2-3 citation, it seems clear that in order for RONR to be consistent with itself, "introduction" refers to the full process by which a main motion is brought before the assembly, not merely the making of the motion.

To use an example:

Are you asserting, the business, "That we paint the barn red," was, at some time, before the assembly, even as the motion itself never was before the assembly?

As a main motion, wasn't anything "before the assembly"?

Wasn't anything "brought"? Even for a micro-second?

No, no, and no.

Also, I must admit I'm curious as to whether you're merely arguing this for semantic purposes or if it is your opinion that a motion which dies for lack of a second may not be renewed during the same session.

Edited November 13, 2010 at 08:31 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

A motion which dies for lack of a second has not brought business before the assembly. Certainly there are cases in which a motion comes before the assembly without a second, but that is not what this question is about.

A motion (regardless of whether it is seconded) is before the assembly when it is stated by the chair, which is made quite clear in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 31, lines 25-27; pg. 36, lines 7-9. A motion which dies for the lack of a second never reaches this stage, and is not before the assembly. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 34, lines 21-24)

As for the RONR, 10th ed., pg. 95, lines 2-3 citation, it seems clear that in order for RONR to be consistent with itself, "introduction" refers to the full process by which a main motion is brought before the assembly, not merely the making of the motion.

Yes. We, the assembly, will show that we won't even entertain a motion that Mr. D. H. would make!!!

[paulmcclintock]

One more wrinkle:

Do any answers change in anyone's opinion for unseconded "main" motions regarding recording in minutes and renewability in these cases:

(1) The motion is made, the chair asks if there is a second, hearing none, the chair declares that the motion is not before the assembly.

(2) The motion is made, the chair states the question, a member makes a point of order about no second, the chair declares the point well taken, calls for a second, hears none, and declares the motion not before the assembly.

[Gary Novosielski]

One more wrinkle:

Do any answers change in anyone's opinion for unseconded "main" motions regarding recording in minutes and renewability in these cases:

(1) The motion is made, the chair asks if there is a second, hearing none, the chair declares that the motion is not before the assembly.

(2) The motion is made, the chair states the question, a member makes a point of order about no second, the chair declares the point well taken, calls for a second, hears none, and declares the motion not before the assembly.

We were discussing renewability, but I don't think we mentioned recording in the minutes. Motions that die for lack of a second are recorded in the minutes.

[Trina]

One more wrinkle:

Do any answers change in anyone's opinion for unseconded "main" motions regarding recording in minutes and renewability in these cases:

(1) The motion is made, the chair asks if there is a second, hearing none, the chair declares that the motion is not before the assembly.

(2) The motion is made, the chair states the question, a member makes a point of order about no second, the chair declares the point well taken, calls for a second, hears none, and declares the motion not before the assembly.

In case (2) the chair did state the question, so the motion was placed before the assembly, albeit briefly. That does seem to lead to the odd conclusion that it can't be renewed, whereas in case (1) it can be. The difference grows out of a fairly small error by the chair... which perhaps seems inadequate as a reason for changing the potential fate of the motion if someone attempts to renew it later in the meeting.

On the other hand, case (2) does involve more intentional action from the assembly, since someone goes to the trouble of raising a point of order in order to forestall debate on the stated motion; whereas in case (1) the members may simply have been passively inattentive and/or uninterested. Maybe that active intervention makes it reasonable that the motions in the two cases are not equally renewable later on?

[Tim Wynn]

In case (2) the chair did state the question, so the motion was placed before the assembly, albeit briefly. That does seem to lead to the odd conclusion that it can't be renewed, whereas in case (1) it can be. The difference grows out of a fairly small error by the chair... which perhaps seems inadequate as a reason for changing the potential fate of the motion if someone attempts to renew it later in the meeting.

On the other hand, case (2) does involve more intentional action from the assembly, since someone goes to the trouble of raising a point of order in order to forestall debate on the stated motion; whereas in case (1) the members may simply have been passively inattentive and/or uninterested. Maybe that active intervention makes it reasonable that the motions in the two cases are not equally renewable later on?

In my opinion, in case (2), for the purposes of determining whether or not the motion is renewable, the motion was not before the assembly.

If the motion was "that mint chocolate cake be added to the menu," and the chair stated it as "that mint chocolate shakes be added to the menu," which was immediately corrected by a point of order, I wouldn't think for a second that the latter motion would be out of order later in the meeting.

By the way, I'm hungry.

[Guest Adam Hoff]

I am seeking an updated opinion on the Roberts Rules for a motion that "dies for lack of second."

Specifically, a recent local zoning case had a motion raised to grant a variance to a developer.  The Board Chairman acknowledged the motion, restating the question, and requested a second.  No second was provided and the Chairman stated that "The motion dies due to lack of second" and continued the meeting agenda.  Later in the meeting, following additional discussion and objection by the Developer within the same case ... and presumably with some frantic text messaging by interested parties in the background ... the exact same motion for variance was offered by the same person that originally offered it and, this time, was the motion was seconded.  A role call vote was called and the motion carried by simple majority, not unanimously.

It would seem to me that, with the Chairman's formal declaration that the motion/question was asked and died for lack of second, the motion was "on the floor for consideration by the assembly" and therefore should not have been permitted to be renewed for consideration, unless (at a minimum) the renewed motion was substantially different from the original.  And such renewed motion should have been offered by another individual if not modified.

Am I missing something or was this motion completed in a parliamentary incorrect manner?

[George Mervosh]

A motion which died for the lack of a second can be made again during the same meeting.  That's hasn't changed.

Oh and tacking onto 10+ year old threads is frowned upon by the moderators.....even the tolerant ones.   

See  

 

Edited April 26, 2021 at 08:19 PM by George Mervosh

[Joshua Katz]

The motion was not on the floor for consideration. The purpose of a second is to determine whether to burden the assembly with considering a motion. When there is no second, the assembly is not so burdened. However, even if you thought offering the motion again was out of order, it would be too late to do anything about it, as a point of order will not be timely.

For the future, please post new questions in new topics, even if one (here 11 years old) is similar. However, it is sometimes nice to see our fondly remembered friends again.