Question on the Status of Agenda Items

[Guest Larry]

If a assembly adopts an agenda that brings certain items up for the consideration for the first time, must those items be introduced to the assembly by a main motion before debate even though its already on the agenda?

[jstackpo]

Yes.

[Joshua Katz]

To expand slightly on Dr. Stackpole's answer: The agenda tells you on what topics business will be introduced.  A motion introduces the business.  Thus, for instance, an agenda item might be "The Clubhouse Color."  A main motion, made when that agenda item is reached, might be "To paint the clubhouse red."  

I mention this because the requirement is not a formality.  It prevents you from coming to that agenda item and saying "okay, well, we're going to talk about the clubhouse color now," and then having an interminable 'debate' in which all speakers talk past each other, singing the praises of one color or another, and no decision gets made.  (If you wish to have such a thing happen, of course, you can, via the method of filing blanks - but this method ensures that either a decision will be made, or the thing will end eventually.)  Instead, no debate takes place until someone puts forth a plan - Red!  Then the discussion is focused on red or not red.  Ah, you say, but I like blue, how can I make it blue?  Simple - you can move to amend by striking and inserting, and the question for debate now will be: if the clubhouse gets painted, shall it be red or blue?  Once that is resolved, you can return to the question.  But what if I'm okay with red, but only if it will be done within a month and for no less than $200?  Amend by addition.  I, on the other hand, want to adopt that amendment, but I will be uneasy with spending more than $150 - I will use a secondary amendment.  See how, regardless, at every stage, there is a question which can be answered with a yes or a no, as opposed to an open-ended question. This is desirable if, like me, you prefer going home.  That's why a motion is needed.

We can go further.  This sort of proceeding doesn't only improve your decision-making process once.  It improves organizational discipline, as well, because it encourages people to think all the way through their ideas before a meeting, rather than saying "I dunno, I just think something should be done about the basement."  If that fails, you have a means to force that sort of consideration - the motion to refer.  When Mr. Smith says he has no real ideas, but wants the meeting to discuss the basement, you don't need to slap him, you just move to refer to a committee, which then returns with a fully-baked recommendation, during its report, for the assembly to adopt, reject, or amend and then adopt.

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Guest Larry said:

If a assembly adopts an agenda that brings certain items up for the consideration for the first time, must those items be introduced to the assembly by a main motion before debate even though its already on the agenda?

At some point, the motion will have to be made, though possibly not directly. 

I think that might be an exception, technically, if the motion was previously set as a regular or special order, usually at the previous meeting.   The motion to make something a special order, is a main motion, but would be, technically, a different main motion (T- pp. 20-21, # 55)

In looking at this, if the assembly adopts an agenda, with a specific motion, e.g. "that the clubhouse be painted red," at a specific point, I think the chair could just announce it.  However, note the agenda has to be adopted, and that, when pending,  the agenda can be amended by majority vote. 

[Joshua Katz]

40 minutes ago, J. J. said:

In looking at this, if the assembly adopts an agenda, with a specific motion, e.g. "that the clubhouse be painted red," at a specific point, I think the chair could just announce it.  However, note the agenda has to be adopted, and that, when pending,  the agenda can be amended by majority vote. 

I agree.  I was picturing the case where no motion is on the agenda.

[Dan Honemann]

12 hours ago, Guest Larry said:

If a assembly adopts an agenda that brings certain items up for the consideration for the first time, must those items be introduced to the assembly by a main motion before debate even though its already on the agenda?

Yes.

[Dan Honemann]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 10:38 PM, J. J. said:

In looking at this, if the assembly adopts an agenda, with a specific motion, e.g. "that the clubhouse be painted red," at a specific point, I think the chair could just announce it.  However, note the agenda has to be adopted, and that, when pending,  the agenda can be amended by majority vote. 

 

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2018 at 11:19 PM, Joshua Katz said:

I agree.  I was picturing the case where no motion is on the agenda.

I disagree.

Adoption of an agenda containing a motion or resolution does not, in and of itself, introduce that motion or resolution. If the motion or resolution has not previously been introduced and come over from an earlier time, it will have to be introduced at the time when it is scheduled to be taken up. (In this connection, see RONR, 11th ed., p. 357, ll. 14-19; p. 373, l. 31 to p. 374, l. 2.)

 

Edited January 15, 2018 at 10:46 AM by Daniel H. Honemann
correct typo

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I disagree.

Adoption of an agenda containing a motion or resolution does not, in and of itself, introduce that motion or resolution. If the motion or resolution has not previously been introduced and come over from an earlier time, it will have to introduced at the time when it is scheduled to be taken up. (In this connection, see RONR, 11th ed., p. 357, ll. 14-19; p. 373, l. 31 to p. 374, l. 2.)

Then I disagree too.  I do think that, at that point, it's not really worth fighting over, though.

[Dan Honemann]

22 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Then I disagree too.  I do think that, at that point, it's not really worth fighting over, though.

I'm not sure I understand this response, but that's okay. 

[J. J.]

10 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

I disagree.

Adoption of an agenda containing a motion or resolution does not, in and of itself, introduce that motion or resolution. If the motion or resolution has not previously been introduced and come over from an earlier time, it will have to introduced at the time when it is scheduled to be taken up. (In this connection, see RONR, 11th ed., p. 357, ll. 14-19; p. 373, l. 31 to p. 374, l. 2.)

 

 

I do not agree based either citation.   On p. 373, ll. 33-35 it reads that the member will "offer the motion or resolution embodying the scheduled topic (unless the question has previously been introduced ..." (emphasis added).  It seems clear, in this situation refers to a topic, not a specific motion.  In the other words if the agenda were state that a motion "relating to the clubhouse" will be brought up at a specific point, it would be necessary to to state a motion.  In this particular, the motion on the agenda and is fully formed.

On your second citation, this refers something created a special order and notes that no motion is necessary "since the introduction of the has been accomplished previously (p. 357, ll. 15-18)."  Putting the specific motion on the agenda, and having the agenda adopted, has "accomplished" this introduction.  The motion becomes one of that "series of special orders or general orders- or a mixture of both" that comprises the agenda (p. 371, ll. 16-18).

 

[Joshua Katz]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'm not sure I understand this response, but that's okay. 

If the author says the presence of a motion on the agenda is not sufficient, I'll accept that.  But if at the meeting, the assembly starts discussing the motion on the agenda, I certainly would not stand up and object that no one had made the motion.  If I were presiding, I would find such a point of order not well taken because debate had begun, and it's only effect would be to make someone read the words on the agenda.

[Gary Novosielski]

22 hours ago, J. J. said:

I do not agree based either citation.   On p. 373, ll. 33-35 it reads that the member will "offer the motion or resolution embodying the scheduled topic (unless the question has previously been introduced ..." (emphasis added).  It seems clear, in this situation refers to a topic, not a specific motion.  In the other words if the agenda were state that a motion "relating to the clubhouse" will be brought up at a specific point, it would be necessary to to state a motion.  In this particular, the motion on the agenda and is fully formed.

On your second citation, this refers something created a special order and notes that no motion is necessary "since the introduction of the has been accomplished previously (p. 357, ll. 15-18)."  Putting the specific motion on the agenda, and having the agenda adopted, has "accomplished" this introduction.  The motion becomes one of that "series of special orders or general orders- or a mixture of both" that comprises the agenda (p. 371, ll. 16-18).

 

As I read these citations, "previously introduced" implies that someone has actually moved them at some prior time.  There's nothing to indicate that printing a proposed resolution in the agenda is sufficient to actually introduce the motion.  I see it as one method of presenting a motion in writing, which still requires someone to move it.  

In practice, in meetings the school board on which I served, motions would be moved by a member saying "I move resolution number five, as printed."

"Second."

(Since all members of the board and the public had a printed copy of the agenda, reading of the resolution by the secretary, or stating the motion by the president were customarily waived, as was restating the motion on putting the question, unless it had been amended.  Later, when meetings began to be televised, it became common practice for the member to actually read the motion, so that TV viewers who did not have a copy of the resolution could follow what was going on.)

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

As I read these citations, "previously introduced" implies that someone has actually moved them at some prior time.  There's nothing to indicate that printing a proposed resolution in the agenda is sufficient to actually introduce the motion.  I see it as one method of presenting a motion in writing, which still requires someone to move it.  

 

But yet, some motion can be created a special order, "I move that the following motion be created a special order for 11:00 AM:  That the clubhouse be painted red."  The motion would not need to be made at 11:00 AM.  Even though that there was no motion made specifically, at 11:00 AM  the chair should state the motion That the clubhouse be painted red.    Presumably, a general order would be made the same way.

An agenda is a collection of special and general orders (p. 371, ll. 17-19) and by adopting an agenda the assembly can actually makes an order of the day (p. 635, ll. 30-35).  They are, collectively, orders of the day.

I would note that in the description of the motion "Call for the Orders of the Day,"  notes that an order of the day "... which such a call may bring before the assembly is itself invariably a main motion, and when it is announced and pending, it is amendable and debatable... . (p. 222, ll. 21-24, emphasis added)."  There is no suggestion that motion must be announced,  made (or re-made), and then become pended.

Supposed that the was an agenda with the motion,  That the clubhouse be painted red, set to be brought up at 11:00 PM.  The chair does not call it and a member, correctly,  stand and says, "I call for the orders of the day."  The chair would then have to say, "The agenda sets the time for considering the motion, That the clubhouse be painted red, for 11:00 AM.  It is 11:00 AM.  Will somebody make the motion?"  That, to me at least, seems to be bad form.  

While I realize things have changed since 1923, Gen. Robert was asked "Should the chair announce a special or general order?"  he responded.  He responded, "Yes, it is the duty of the chair to announce the order, or to state that the time has arrived to take up the special order (PL, p. 494, Q&A  232, b.)."  As today, special orders could be created by putting a motion on the agenda, and there is no suggestion that this should be treated differently. 

[Dan Honemann]

The three ways in which an item of business can be made an order of the day are described on page 365, lines 20-35, and what is said on page 357, lines, 14-19, makes it very clear that, although no motion normally needs to be made at the time when an order of the day which has been made as described in 1 and 2 on page 365 is due to be taken up, a motion will need to be made if the order of the day was made as a part of an agenda or program, as described in 3 on page 365.

It's really not so difficult to understand.

[jstackpo]

Since we are on the subject:  is it not so that a fourth way that an issue can be made a general order is described on page 596, lines 25-26, i.e., giving notice of a bylaw amendment.

I'm wondering if such falls under #2 or #3 as a sort of subset or example?  Or is it an independent mechanism that creates a general order?

Edited January 16, 2018 at 12:09 PM by jstackpo
Correcting for my dyslexia: 596 vs. 569

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

Since we are on the subject:  is it not so that a fourth way that an issue can be made a general order is described on page 596, lines 25-26, i.e., giving notice of a bylaw amendment.

I'm wondering if such falls under #2 or #3 as a sort of subset or example?  Or is it an independent mechanism that creates a general order?

Yes, as of now the book says that "[w]hen notice has been given of a bylaw amendment, it becomes a general order for the meeting at which it is to be considered." As you have noted, this is a unique way in which an item of business can become a general order.

What this really means is that, if the proposed amendment hasn't already been dealt with for some reason or other (usually incident to a committee's report, which is highly likely), when the time comes for taking up general orders the member who gave the notice is entitled to be recognized for the purpose of making his motion, ahead of any other general order not made earlier and any new business (p. 359, ll. 1-3). 

 

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The three ways in which an item of business can be made an order of the day are described on page 365, lines 20-35, and what is said on page 357, lines, 14-19, makes it very clear that, although no motion normally needs to be made at the time when an order of the day which has been made as described in 1 and 2 on page 365 is due to be taken up, a motion will need to be made if the order of the day was made as a part of an agenda or program, as described in 3 on page 365.

It's really not so difficult to understand.

I'm looking at those lines, and I am not seeing that.

Perhaps if there is a difference, the text needs to be much clearer.  Something like, "A motion that has been created a special order because of its inclusion of an agenda (see p. 365) should be stated by the chair."

That said, I would suspect that the chair would usually assume the motion. 

[jstackpo]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, as of now the book says ...

Hmm, the emphasis on "now" suggests that we, the readers of RONR, should be on the lookout for further "clarification" when RONR/12 becomes available.