Rob Elsman

Me, too, Zev.

I do not think we are understanding the original poster. The facts are too slim to answer correctly. For one thing, I cannot figure out why an agenda is being used by a board of trustees of an organization that meets monthly. For another, I cannot figure out who is the mover to adopt the agenda at the beginning of the meeting. Is it the chairman of the board? If we make a lot of assumptions: 1) the standard order of business is not appropriate or practical for this meeting, and, 2) the chairman is the mover in a board using the rules for small boards; then, the chairman is at liberty to arrange the items of business in whatever order he wishes before making his main motion. If his motion conflicts with the standard order of business by rearranging the categories of business, then the main motion to adopt the agenda requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it has the effect of suspending the rules. Similarly, if the motion to adopt the agenda assigns the hour at which an item of business will be taken up, the main motion to adopt the agenda requires a two-thirds vote. On the other hand, if some other member is the mover to adopt the agenda, the chairman of the board has no authority to unilaterally manipulate the order of items of business without a vote of the assembly. His option is to move to modify the main motion (to adopt the agenda) while it is pending by making a subsidiary motion, Amend. This subsidiary motion always requires a majority vote for adoption. If the adoption of the subsidiary motion leaves the main motion, as amended, having the effect of suspending the rules, then adoption of the main motion, as amended, requires a two-thirds vote. The upshot of all this rigmarole is 1) the board should most likely drop the habit of adopting an agenda at the beginning of each meeting, and, 2) carefully read RONR (12th ed.) §41, like I said earlier.

Doesn't everybody? 😊

Carefully read all of RONR (12th ed.) §41.

...and RONR (12th ed.) 23:5.

The chair's improper calling for votes on the negative side should cause the raising of a Point of Order. The chair is precluding a correct response. If the voter responds "Yes" to the call, "Any opposed?", his vote is liable to be interpreted as a vote in the affirmative; on the other hand, if the voter responds, "No", his vote is liable to be interpreted as meaning that the voter is not opposed. The chair is either inadvertent or too clever by half. I am not sure which.

What you are describing as a standing rule is actually a special rule of order, prohibiting a certain class of main motions. This special rule of order is suspendable. The proper motion is Suspend the Rules, RONR (12th ed.) §25. This incidental motion requires a second; is not amendable; is not debatable; and, adoption requires a two-thirds vote. Suspend the Rules is undebatable because the assembly is fully enlightened and instructed from the outset. There is nothing to debate. However, if the rules are suspended and the motion to endorse someone comes before the assembly, the advisability of making the endorsement will be fully debatable (and, by the way, amendable), and the consequences of such an endorsement can be fully explored.

Let's not muddy the waters. The maker desires to extend his time to speak to five minutes before he makes the original main motion and before he actually makes his speech. He is violating nothing, notwithstanding any maxim to the contrary.

Why, I've never heard of such a thing! 😂

The maker is perfectly within his rights to violate the maxim, so to speak. He may make a preliminary main motion to extend to five minutes his right--and, to be fair, the right of the presumed leader of the opposition--to speak for the first time in debate. The motion requires a second; is debatable; is amendable; and, requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since its adoption would have the effect of suspending the rules. It is always courteous and just plain fair to extend the opposition's debate in the same way desired by the maker.

I agree with Zev. The executive board's adopted motion puts the society on record, and a member of the general membership assembly may not speak adversely to it in debate, unless there be pending a motion to modify or rescind what was decided by the executive board (assuming the matter is not exclusively in the control of the executive board). With respect to matters exclusively in the control of the executive board, the only recourse (short of amending the bylaws) for a member of the general membership assembly is to make a motion of censure expressing the sense of the general membership assembly; and, members of the general membership assembly may speak adversely to the executive board's action in debate when such a motion is pending.

...and causes all kinds of confusion, as this forum amply demonstrates. The authors cannot help but to have noticed this. Hmm. Just thinking aloud. I wonder if it would be possible to convince one of the authors to present a webinar on the subject and put it up on the web. 🤔

What I intend to say is that the beginning of the recognized member's speech or making a motion ends the breach of the rule. The violation of the rule is "healed", if you please, and there is nothing left about which to raise a Point of Order. See RONR (12th ed.) 23:5.

Although the constitution establishes RONR (12th ed.) as the council's current parliamentary authority, the members do not seem to know what that means. The presiding officer, in particular, does not seem to know what RONR (12th ed.) prescribes. Maybe, the council would be interested in launching an educational program to bring the members--in particular, the presiding officer--up to speed. I think a good starting point for this kind of educational effort would be the purchase and distribution of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In-Brief (3rd edition) to all the members of the council. The presiding officer should have a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th edition) to have at hand at each meeting; in addition, he should have at hand at each meeting a copy of the governing documents and any special rules of order that the council may have adopted.

The window of time within which to properly raise a Point of Order concerning the incorrect assignment of the floor expires when the recognized member begins to make his speech or make a motion. It is improper to interrupt a speaker in debate for this purpose.

I wonder if this council has jurisdiction somewhere in the British Commonwealth or former British colonies that use the procedures of the House of Commons.

Almost nothing in the original post has any resemblance to the rules in RONR (12th ed.). "First reading"? "Switched the agenda"? "Old business"?

Mr. Martin's response, "I don't see...", Mr. Gerber's response, "The difference is...", and Mr. Honemann's response, "No, not necessarily...", are particularly instructive for me. I thank each of them for his helpfulness. 🙂

One way a one-sided debate can occur is this: The maker rises and is assigned the floor The maker makes his motion The motion is seconded The chair states the question The chair recognizes the maker The maker delivers the opening speech in favor of the motion At the conclusion of his speech, the maker moves the Previous Question The Previous Question is handled and adopted, thus closing debate The upshot is that one speech in favor of the motion will have been made, and opponents of the motion will have been given no opportunity to make a speech.

Committees sometimes hold hearings, at which guests may be invited to make remarks. When the committee deliberates and writes its report, however, guests are not allowed, in order to give the committee the greatest freedom to deliberate with the least constraints.

If J.J. would be amenable to striking out "standard order of business" and inserting "established order of business" in the same place, he and I would be singing in perfect harmony from the same page.

With respect to Question 3, what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 41:67 is relevant, and the proper procedure is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 18:8. So, at best, the answer is "maybe", depending on the result of a motion to "set aside the orders of the day".

The handling of the resolution and what appears to have been a Point of Order ("sorta maybe"?) is not consistent with the procedures in RONR (12th ed.); however, it is impossible for me to say that the chairman acted improperly without knowing all the relevant "special rules" that the Republican Party of Texas might have "promulgated" (like the pope?).

If the adoption of the agenda is not moved, there is nothing to postpone, refer, or amend. The unmoved and unadopted recommendation to limit debate has no force or effect whatsoever, and the presiding officer does not have the authority to enforce it, as if the recommendation were some kind of rule. If it is desired to limit debate for all or a part of a meeting, the proper starting point of the procedure is for a member (other than the presiding officer) to obtain the floor when no other motion is pending and make the appropriate incidental main motion. This motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since it would have the effect of suspending the rules (if nothing else, the common parliamentary law). The way the question is posed, I have a hunch that there is confusion about the terms of art, "call of a meeting" and "agenda".

As to what the original poster asked, I concur with Mr. Martin's response.