• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About D.Llama

Recent Profile Visitors

413 profile views
  1. Very sorry indeed, Mr Honemann to have taxed you so repeatedly with these many demands . Some ( like me ) are slow to grasp the wrinkles and turns and need continuous remedial instruction . That a new matter of business is not to be "New Business" is certainly one of the nuances that causes the lesser mind to falter . But the light now does go on that this header -Unfinished Business and General Orders would not go in an agenda . I think the above kindly made rebuke - caused the needed shift ! I see the example in RONRIB is confirmatory . Obliged
  2. Thank -you Mr Honemann . This response prompts me to attempt a script : MEMBER : "Mr President - respecting our meeting next week - I see from the draft agenda sent out that there is a heading for New Business . I have one item that is new and I would like that listed under that heading - would you please add that in on the draft agenda -that is to to be adopted . PRESIDENT : "No sorry, cannot do that - but I can add it in under Unfinished Business and General Orders ". MEMBER : " But this is a new matter -its not unfinished at all - its new - why not put it where all other new items go." PRESIDENT : "It may indeed be "new" but that does not make it an item of New Business for the draft and to be adopted agenda . And its not Unfinished Business either - its the latter part of that header - and General orders " . MEMBER : OHHHHHH- very nuanced be this ! Pray tell - Mr Honemann- would the President have managed this correctly ? Much Obliged .
  3. Ah soo ( "that way" ) - Dr Stackpole. And from this I gather that if the example on p. 16 did not have in it " New Business ", and it were adopted , then there could be no New Business unless a motion were made to amend the agenda to allow as much . What say you Dr Stackpole ? This being- elementary ? DLlama
  4. Ms Nancy N : Do google :" What say you ? " Old english with usage apparently in the courts . " What say you prisoner before you taken out - drawn and quartered ?" Just now undergoing a revival . As antiquated as " Previous Question " but arguably more easily understood by the uninitiated . "Daffy " and disliked by some - but for others a friendly banter and expression . D.Llama
  5. Dr. Stackpole : Why not consider the example in RONRIB ( p. 12 or 16 ) . What if that amounted to the exact words of the " agenda " that was drafted up , presented , and adopted at the outset - by majority vote . ? If that were the case would someone be allowed after it were adopted ,to simply offer a new item of business and not be required - to move to amend -to add it on ?
  6. Mr Huynh: Arising from the answer provided to Ms Janita - if the "agenda" is by motion approved ( set ) at the outset of the meeting ,may a member simply bring up "New Business " ( during this part of the meeting ) without that new business having been listed as an item -at the outset, and on the agenda . If a member can do so - " bring up new business " as he/she determines - what is the meaning of p. 120 ( top paragraph ) RONRIB , and the paragraph above the agenda example provided in RONRIB ( p. 12 or 16 - I do not have it here at the moment ? ) . Those seem to suggest that if the "agenda" is approved/adopted - then its locked in and for a member to have something in addition put on the agenda that member would need to make a motion ,at some point, to amend the agenda- to add it on . What say you ? Thanks . DLlama
  7. Hmmmm . It seems that Mr's Honemann, Stackpole , and Mervosh are all in agreement and the thing is pretty much cut and dry and ought to be easily grasped with sufficient effort ! And I accordingly throw in the towel on this topic . I must now consider myself less able than most in connection with ability to grasp what is right there in front of my face ( apparently ) - in the text of RONR . However, I do do not think I'm at all alone in this respect and there are others that likewise struggle with this topic . I nevertheless thank for your patience . Much Obliged for the "ink" expended . Dllama
  8. Hi Leo : Thank-you for the note - however, it provides no help to me specifically. If it is of help to you - perhaps you could explain how- so respecting what is raised above ? For those who consider that there is indeed " complexity" that seems driven by the definitional context of "agenda" (orders made ) p. 364 LN 33-35. But a review of the example agenda on p. 16 RONRIB identifies possibly "made " ( e.g. postponed ; various items earlier made ) items on the agenda for a proposed meeting ,but also things that will be made when this agenda is adopted . And it contains headers that are equally applicable for standard order of business . The question then : What can be on an agenda (?) can seemingly ( p. 16 RONRIB ) include the following : 1) All calls to Order/ Recesses /Adjournments ( RONR p. 360 ,LL 25-30 ) - regardless of footnote- bottom of p. 26 2) Particularly important items of business ( 360 ) 3) Unfinished Business and business made orders from an earlier meeting ; 4) Opening Ceremonies ( RONR p. 360,ll 25 -25) an optional item - sometimes located in regular meetings ; 5) Program 6) AND - Other An agenda then contains ,apparently, any item of "business" ( even -"Invocation" - RONRIB p. 16 ) that the President is pleased to draft on the agenda and the assembly is pleased to adopt. And arguably a " Call to Order " , as a first item in an "agenda " ( 26 footnote ), or perhaps a "Determination of Quorum" ( RONR p. 348 LL 34 ff). The real problem is to tease this out of the text - that is - an "agenda" shall be what the assembly determines to adopt as the agenda .It is not limited to orders made from past meetings ,some or all header subjects on a standard order of business , nor does it necessarily exclude what RONR says it shall not include ( Call to Order ; Quorum , etc ) . Its getting to this that can be a struggle for the average reader . Thanks Leo . Dllama
  9. Mr Honemann ,with respect , it strikes this writer that the complication and confusion is driven in this connection in great part by the wrinkles , nuances and inherent confusion of the language applied in RONR, and not otherwise . The discussions above seek to clarify . If the text in RONR is so convoluted that a person of Dr. Stackpole's years of experience ( although not of the editorial team -past or current ) considers it "complex" and a" jumble" that would seem to suggest that the text is arguably problematic in this area . It certainly is for me - it borders on the unintelligible when all in , and this without any intention or wish to make this " more complicated " than need be .Indeed ,the intent is just the opposite - which is - to roll this out and pin it down for the sole purpose of clarification . But to be fair , perhaps Dr Stackpole and I, are outliers in this struggle and the vast majority of Forum users do not consider this area something of a troublesome Gordian Knot . Obliged regardless -for your response . Dllama
  10. RONR provides that " a series of special orders or general orders - or a mixture of both - can be made ; such a series is called an agenda ".( p. 371 ll. 17-19) . This suggests that these items ( special and general orders ) alone can be an agenda ,or indeed perhaps that they are the only things that can constitute and form an agenda . Further on ( RONR, p. 371 ll. 25- 32 ).. " in an agenda " often an hour is assigned only to such subjects as the "calls to order , "recesses , adjournments" and ..." ..important items of business". And again , further on " these, then, are special orders for the time stated " . This suggests that the items referred to- " calls to order " etc., become special orders on the "agenda" . Finally , RONRIB p. 16, provides an example of an "Agenda " and planned adoption of that agenda is identified as point " II. " Question : 1) Is it because of the adoption, by majority vote , that all the listed items ( I to XII ) on the RONRIB example ( p 16), are thereby made general orders ( as no times on example p. 16 ),and by very virtue of that vote are accordingly " a series of special or general orders " - and therefore are called an "agenda "? 2) If before a meeting the President receives a request from a member to add an item to the proposed draft agenda ( e.g. RONRIB, agenda p. 16 ) under New Business, and there is no bylaw , notice requirement , or other customs that would preclude so doing may he/she simply adjust the draft agenda and add that in - so that it would be included in the final draft "agenda" that goes before the assembly for adoption.? Or should the member wanting this included be told to make a motion to amend - to add to the agenda this item - under " New Business " . Thank-you for any response - in advance ! Dllama
  11. Here spake the voice ( illuminati - D. Honemann ) that answers truly and with simplicity ( "of course " ) and puts in place nay-sayers . Hurrah !
  12. ok - appreciated and for sure - will do !
  13. Dear Steven : Dolly is away just now - but the question posed is nevertheless of interest and no doubt Mr G. will have a ready answer soon enough ! DLlama
  14. Mr. Gerber : The Chair considered that on the first question- it was absolutely clear -debate was ended when Previous Question (PQ) was ordered . But after the division was made the Chair was not satisfied that Previous Question attached to the divided question second part - regardless that it was Ordered for the first part. And indeed- the Chair indicated as much when he allowed the debate on the second question to proceed. My own sense is that the Chair was in error as (agree with your conclusion Mr G. ) - the intent of the Previous Question was to end debate on "all pending questions". Three were potentially pending - when the PQ was ordered - the two eventually divided and the subsidiary motion to divide . Thank -you one and all . Ddlama
  15. But Mr. Britton : When the Previuos Question was advanced it specifically was stated to be for " all pending questions (see above ) so it was arguably applicable to the motion to divide and the main motion . However, you do provide that regardless the Chair would not have been in error by allowing for debate on the second main motion . And obliged for that - BUT are you able to identify the page and line number you rely on as RONR authority for this response . Much Obliged . Ddlama