"other business" as agenda item

[janita]

A small issue but agenda's often include "other business" as a final item to allow people to add items that have come up after the agenda was set.   Is it correct for other business to include a list of items before the agenda is circulated?             

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR does not have a heading for "other business", although it describes one for "New Business". A member can bring up new business during this part of the meeting without the item being listed.

[D.Llama]

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 

[jstackpo]

I, for one, would have to see the exact words of what was adopted as the "agenda" in D.Llama's meeting before I could venture to say whether someone could introduce a piece of new business with or without the necessity of a motion to amend the "agenda".

[Guest Nancy N.]

4 hours ago, D.Llama said:

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 ....

DLlama 

Dllama,  I don't quite follow your question.  In RONR-IB's sample agenda, p. 16 - 17, category (RONR p. 360, line 27; or "heading," p. 354, line 7) of business XI (French for "New Business") is New Business.  That's when it is brought up.  Do you think you see a suggestion, anywhere, that a list of the items to be dealt with under New Business has to exist before they are brought up (even if we consider the heading "New Busiiness" to be locked in)?  Perish knows there's enough to tear one's (little remaining) hair out over Section 41, but let your equanimity take New Business serenely.

4 hours ago, D.Llama said:

... What say you ? 

Would someone please tell me where this daffy turn of phrase comes from?  It was all the rage maybe five or ten years ago, then thankfully (my thanks, not the phrase's) petered out.

[D.Llama]

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 ? 

[jstackpo]

Certainly.  "New Business" is, well, the heading under which new business can be introduced.

[Guest Nancy N,.]

Chopped liver, signing out.

[Richard Brown]

I think the issue that is perhaps being overlooked is what happens if the adopted agenda lists the specific items of new business (motions) that are expected to be brought up under new business?  Would other items of new business still be appropriate without suspending the rules or amending the agenda?

The same question would apply to an agenda heading of "Other Business" which lists... itemizes.... the "other business" expected to be brought up.  Would "unlisted" "other business" be appropriate without suspending the rules or amending the agenda?

I'm of the opinion that new (unlisted) business can still be introduced while in those parts of the agenda, but I don't know that everyone agrees.

[D.Llama]

10 hours ago, Guest Nancy N. said:

Dllama,  I don't quite follow your question.  In RONR-IB's sample agenda, p. 16 - 17, category (RONR p. 360, line 27; or "heading," p. 354, line 7) of business XI (French for "New Business") is New Business.  That's when it is brought up.  Do you think you see a suggestion, anywhere, that a list of the items to be dealt with under New Business has to exist before they are brought up (even if we consider the heading "New Busiiness" to be locked in)?  Perish knows there's enough to tear one's (little remaining) hair out over Section 41, but let your equanimity take New Business serenely.

Would someone please tell me where this daffy turn of phrase comes from?  It was all the rage maybe five or ten years ago, then thankfully (my thanks, not the phrase's) petered out.

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

 

[D.Llama]

10 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Certainly.  "New Business" is, well, the heading under which new business can be introduced.

 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

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

23 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think the issue that is perhaps being overlooked is what happens if the adopted agenda lists the specific items of new business (motions) that are expected to be brought up under new business?  Would other items of new business still be appropriate without suspending the rules or amending the agenda?

If an adopted agenda lists specific items of business (motions) that are expected to be brought up under something called "new business", the listed items are, in fact, either general orders or special orders, and not "new business" within the meaning of that term as used in RONR. No self respecting parliamentarian should allow it to happen, although I suspect it won't ordinarily cause much confusion (particularly if none of them is made a special order). The introduction of items which are actually new business should be allowed under such a heading, but only after any listed items have been disposed of.

[D.Llama]

 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 . 

 

[Guest Nancy N.]

Very nice.  Just, instead of this:

"PRESIDENT  : No sorry, cannot do that - but I can add it in under Unfinished  Business and General Orders ."

-- I think it would be better, because more accurate, and clearer, so say "-To schedule a motion for our next meeting is to make it a general order, which I think will satisfy your needs, unless you actually want your motion to be considered towards the end of the meeting, in which case I'm sure we can legitimately finagle that somehow-- see footnote,-" [note quasi-quotes] and be sure not to provide a footnote or you'll get a headache.

[Dan Honemann]

28 minutes ago, D.Llama said:

 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 . 

 

No, he would not have handled it correctly.

I thought that in another thread it was explained to you why, in the example in RONRIB, there is no Item called "Unfinished Business and General Orders" in the agenda. I guess it just didn't sink in. I'm not going to try again.

In any event, the member's item could be inserted into the draft agenda just as the item called "Consideration of Purchasing New Headquarters" is inserted as Item X in the sample agenda in RONRIB.

[D.Llama]

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