[Lnc-business] draft minutes of 3/7/15 EC meeting

[Alicia Mattson]

DING!  That's the sound of the accrual of Joshua's point.

Readers may have wondered how small is a "small board"?  In this case,
"small" is a group of about 12 or fewer people.  By that standard, even
accounting for the imprecision of the word "about", the LNC is a large
board.

-Alicia



On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 6:23 AM, Joshua Katz <planning4liberty at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Seconds are not needed in small boards and committees. Since committees
> and boards are designed to give full consideration and more open
> discussion- see the motion for the previous question being out of order-
> any motion can be put to the body. Additionally it is less troublesome to
> put forth motion without support in a small body. Also as noted the absence
> of a second is always immaterial once debate has begun.
>
> By the way, the UCLA student association would have a lot less trouble
> right now if they kept proper minutes and didn't include everything said.
> On Mar 10, 2015 3:03 AM, "Alicia Mattson" <agmattson at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm awarding Daniel Hayes a point for that answer!
>>
>> I'll award another point to the first person to explain why seconds
>> aren't even technically needed in EC meetings.  :-)
>>
>> And then for those interested in building their RONR skills, seconds are
>> often less important critters than you might think.  For instance, this
>> passage spans pages 36-37 of RONR:
>>
>> "The requirement of a second is for the chair's guidance as to whether he
>> should 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."
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Daniel Hayes <danielehayes at icloud.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Seconds are not required information in minutes as per RONR believe it
>>> or not. However while I don’t think they do I am not familiar if our rules
>>> dictate that we must.
>>> "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the
>>> minutes, but the name of the seconder *should not* be entered unless
>>> ordered by the assembly.(RONR 11th ed. p.470.ll.26-28.)
>>> Borrowing a line from PRP Josh Martin, "There is no statement in *RONR *which
>>> suggests that the fact that a motion was seconded should be included in the
>>> minutes. It is not one of the items listed on pgs. 468-471, and it does not
>>> appear at all in the sample minutes on pgs. 472-473, even though the main
>>> motion by Mr. Gordon, the amendment by Mrs. Thomas, and the motion to
>>> commit by Mr. Dorsey were all probably seconded.”
>>>
>>> Daniel Hayes
>>> LNC Region 7 Representative Alternate
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 9, 2015, at 5:26 PM, goldsteinatlarge at gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Alicia,
>>>
>>> Is the motion’s second missing or not needed in the minutes?
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from Windows Mail
>>>
>>> *From:* Alicia Mattson <agmattson at gmail.com>
>>> *Sent:* ‎Monday‎, ‎March‎ ‎9‎, ‎2015 ‎6‎:‎17‎ ‎PM
>>> *To:* lnc-business <lnc-business at lp.org>
>>>
>>> Attached are the draft minutes from Saturday's EC meeting regarding
>>> ballot access in Arkansas.
>>>
>>> Absent objection from an EC member who attended, these minutes will
>>> auto-approve on 3/23/15.
>>>
>>> Alicia Mattson
>>> LNC Secretary
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lnc-business mailing list
>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business_hq.lp.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20150311/edce16ec/attachment-0002.html>