crebelein

On 1/30/2023 at 7:43 AM, Josh Martin said:

I am also getting the impression at this point that this assembly may be some sort of public body. If that is correct, there may well be something on this matter in the assembly's rules and/or applicable law. Such rules would take precedence over RONR.

Correct. This is an elected school board in MN. There is no statute in place that directs the rules of operation and our district does not have any bylaws that override in RONR. In fact the bylaws/policy are too lean in this respect if you ask me.

On 1/30/2023 at 8:34 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

So who sets what's on the agenda if it's not made a general order by the assembly prior 

At this moment, the Chair sets the agenda and has final say to what is, or is not, included.

On 1/30/2023 at 10:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Let's say they have this strict agenda as described.  At this meeting there are no general orders from last meeting.  A member gives notice to the other members he would like something added, does he just have to hope that a, the chair adds it, or b, the mercy of the other members when the agenda is adopted.

This is exactly what I was getting at with my question concerning notification. I understand how notice works but... if you give notice but are never able to get the topic on the agenda or raise the point during a subsequent meeting, what is the point of (trying) to give notice?

At the moment, the approval of the agenda is part of the consent agenda. To offer amendments that is the first thing that will need to be rectified.

I hadn't considered that. I'll add some additional color the statement from above (quoted below).

Quote

I've never seen the right of a member to make a motion under "New Business" challenged as out of order. However, in a previous meeting a member proceeded under 41:27 (after having a request to add something to the agenda prior to the meeting denied). The chair hesitated but did allow the motion and stated, after the motion received a second, that it should have been ruled out of order. As a result, the chair has given notice that any future motions not on the agenda (41:27) will be immediately ruled out of order (citing 41:63). An appeal of the ruling from the chair would likely fail.

In this exact situation, the Agenda appeared as follows;

Quote

-VARIOUS TOPICS-

11) Routine Action Items

11.1) Action item 1

.

11.8) Action item 8

12) New Business

12.1) Policy A First Reading

.

12.5) Policy E First Reading

13) Review Upcoming Calendar

14) Adjourn

During the meeting the Chair rapidly moved from 12.5 to 13 w/out asking, "Is there any new business?" as outlined in 41:27. A Point of Order was raised and the member was allowed to proceed with making a motion (as indicated above).

My take on "New Business" is that 41:27 is applicable even when an agenda has been accepted and that the Chair should ask, "Is there any new business?" before moving on to the next item. However, it sounds as if my interpretation may be incorrect.

If the adoption of an agenda curtails members from making motions (unless extraordinary circumstances exist), doesn't that effectively silence the minority? My understanding is that RONR respects the fact that majority rules while still protecting the voice of the minority. If a minority can be silenced simply through the application of an agenda, doesn't that defeat the purpose and give the Chair a near monopoly of power? Sure, an amendment to the agenda can be offered but under that scenario, debate on the merits of a given point won't occur unless the amendment passes. Furthermore, in a scenario where an agenda is regularly adopted, other than changing a vote threshold for something that may never be added to the agenda, what is the point of giving notice of a planned action (10:44-51).

On 1/29/2023 at 4:49 PM, J. J. said:

An item of new business could not be brought up under unfinished business, which I thing you noted.

I agree with that statement. If I did mention "unfinished business" in my initial post, I misspoke and intended to address "new business". On this board, we very very seldom have "unfinished business" so that is unlikely to ever be an issue.

On 1/29/2023 at 4:49 PM, J. J. said:

By adopting an agenda, it is possible to curtail an individual member's right to make motions not on the agenda.

Are there specific sections of RONR that I should review that address this? My understanding under RONR was that the adoption of an agenda did not curtail a member's right to make a proper motion and that was a specific case that would need to be addressed in policy/bylaws if that was the desired affect.

I'm a member of a local board that operating under the directive of RONR. There are no policies and/or bylaws that address my upcoming question thereby making RONR authoritative. If we fall back to tradition, this circumstance has not been a concern in recent history due to the "single mindedness" of operation that the board has enjoyed for several decades.

Our 7-member board utilizes a typical agenda that closely resembles what is outlined in 41:5. This agenda is maintained by the Chair and an Ex Officio member (an 8th member that lacks voting privilege). I don't believe that this affects what is proper but our agenda has always concluded with "New Business" immediately prior to "Adjournment" even when lacking topics under "New Business".

Traditionally, adding an item to the agenda has been as simple as making a timely request to the Chair and/or aforementioned Ex Officio member. Due to recent turn over on the board however, these requests are no longer being honored. Furthermore, established membership holds a 5-2 majority so amendments to the agenda at any point is essentially impossible.

This brings up the topic of 41:27 which states;

Quote

6. New Business. After unfinished business and general orders have been disposed of, the chair asks, "Is there any new business?" Members can then introduce new items of business, or can move to take from the table any matter that is on the table (17, 34), in the order in which they are able to obtain the floor when no question is pending, as explained in 3 and 4. So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business by hurrying through the proceedings. 

My understanding of 41:27 (and RONR in whole) is that all members have a protected right to make motions when appropriate. A perfect example of an appropriate time to make a motion concerning new business is immediately proceeding a motion for adjournment. This would be an acceptable time regardless of if an agenda has been adopted even if the accepted agenda does not include "New Business". The only exception of this would be if a board bylaw specifically addresses when it is proper to make motions thereby overriding the directives in RONR (our policy/bylaws do not address this).

Due to the fact that we work off an agenda that is accepted early in our meetings, the text of 41:63 has been cited as an override of 41:27. 41:63 states;

Quote

Changing an Agenda. When the adoption of a proposed agenda is pending, it is subject to amendment by majority vote. After an agenda has been adopted by the assembly, no change can be made in it except by a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent. (See also Taking Up Business out of Its Proper Order, 41:37-39; cf. 59:59.) An affirmative vote to adopt an agenda may not be reconsidered.

I understand 41:63 to specifically address amending the agenda which does not specifically supersede the rights of a member under 41:27 and that a motion made during New Business or immediately prior to moving to adjournment is still proper and in order even if it is not specifically addressed in the adopted agenda.

I've never seen the right of a member to make a motion under "New Business" challenged as out of order. However, in a previous meeting a member proceeded under 41:27 (after having a request to add something to the agenda prior to the meeting denied). The chair hesitated but did allow the motion and stated, after the motion received a second, that it should have been ruled out of order. As a result, the chair has given notice that any future motions not on the agenda (41:27) will be immediately ruled out of order (citing 41:63). An appeal of the ruling from the chair would likely fail.

I believe that the board Chair is an honorable and honest person who will make every effort to proceed under RONR as appropriate. I believe that this is a simple misunderstanding of how 41:63 and 41:27 affect one another and it's very possible that the misunderstanding is mine.

Does the earlier adoption of an Agenda essentially nullify a member's right to make a motion under 41:27 due to 41:63?

If proper notice (10:44-51) is given would that obligate the maintainer of the Agenda to include a given topic (I don't believe it does)?

What other options does a "minority" member, who is unlikely to succeed on a motion to amend the Agenda, have to bring new business before the board?

Any additional information on this topic is greatly appreciated. Especially any examples that cite documentation as to the correct manner to proceed. Thank you!