Scottish Championship

[Ianbrownlee]

Indeed you would expect the proposer not only to make sure of their seconder(s) but to provide the evidence on demand if the named seconder was not attending. Whilst there are 2 seconders named I would question the stance that it's all right, we still have one.

Would not the position be that if 2 seconders are named both have to legal, as it were, for the motion to be competent.

It's OK John as long as we have one valid seconder so the passed motion stands. It's on the onus of the provider to provide a seconder with no need to check on the seconder. If the proposer listed a seconder without the seconder's consent then that is a separate issue

[JMcNicoll]

It's OK John as long as we have one valid seconder so the passed motion stands.

Is that how you understand it or is it written down somewhere?  Hopefully it is written down and you can direct me to the information.

[Ianbrownlee]

It's OK John as long as we have one valid seconder so the passed motion stands.

Is that how you understand it or is it written down somewhere?  Hopefully it is written down and you can direct me to the information.

that's my understanding based on research and general procedures regarding motions. The only way for it to be a problem would be if someone formally objects (in my humble opinion). There are far better qualified people than me to ask. Even if there were hundreds of operating procedures and constitutions, you'd be hard pushed to find one to cover this scenario. Does it really matter at the end of the day? We have a proposer and seconder so can we finally move on. It's impossible to write down every single eventuality.