DKW

Thanks for your replies. Aren't "old business" and "unfinished business" just a different way of saying basically the same thing? Asking because I have heard them used interchangably in different clubs/organizations.

Actually, I have read quite a bit of stuff concerning Roberts but still find some issues confusing - hence why I am posting here. IF i had a complete understanding about everything - I would not be wasting your time or mine by posting here. Unfortunately, many individuals have different views and interpretations of Roberts - even the experts. And unless one lives and breathes it like some apparently do, it is not an easy and intuitive subject to get a handle on. Our club, a hobby club of about 35 members, has always had an agenda format. Officers make reports and then old business is dealt with. When new business is arrived at, it is typical for a member to have placed an item on the agenda, usually a project they want permission to undertake, and at this point there are usually quite a few questions and back and forth discussion. Is it acceptable at that time to entertain those questions and discussions or should the member simply give their description, followed by a motion and second, and THEN any discussion about it should take place? In other words, can there be a give and take session when the member is stating what they want to do or should that wait until the discussion? If the entire process above is backwards I would like to know how it SHOULD go so I can explain and try to convince the rest of the members that how it has been getting done has been wrong and in what ways can we bring it into line with proper procedure.

So to clarify, when an item is on the agenda, we need to have a motion made (and seconded) to discuss the agenda item before any explanation about it or any other discussion about it can be conducted. Then it is voted on. Correct?

A few questions about the "discussion" segment of Roberts Rules. In a previous club, we would have a subject introduced, thoroughly discuss the pros and cons, then a motion would be made to approve the motion (or not), which would be seconded and THEN the president would call for discussion. There was usually very little further discussion, if any, and a vote would then be called for. My question is, in the above scenario, what is to be discussed at the time when "discussion" is called, especially since the subject seemed to have been thoroughly hashed out by then? Is it simply a last chance opportunity to discuss the subject further, or is it a seperate discussion about the motion itself? However, In some information I have read, it almost makes it sound that any item on an agenda needs to have a motion made in order to proceed. And if approved, then it must be seconded, and THEN discussion is called for. But after talking this over with individuals whose knowledge in this area I somewhat respect, I was convinced that is NOT correct. So, exactly what is the place and purpose of calling for discussion when a motion has been made and seconded? Thanks, Dan