Adjournment: Immediate upon commencement of meeting

[Guest Steven Goddu]

I would like to propose a motion to adjourn the meeting immediately at the beginning of the meeting.

This is a town meeting. The town has voted to adopt a new form of that eliminates town meetings. This being the final meeting some might try to sneak some measures through against the will of the recent vote.

Seems 100 people can get something passed contrary to what an overwhelming majority just voted for.

Thanks for your input.

[tctheatc]

Good luck!

(I didn't see a question anywhere...)

[David A Foulkes]

You're welcome. Just curious........ did you have a question regarding Robert's Rules?

[Chris Harrison]

I would like to propose a motion to adjourn the meeting immediately at the beginning of the meeting.

Unless the meeting was strictly for ceremonial purposes where no business was to be conducted I as Chair would be inclined to rule a motion to Adjourn the meeting right after it was called to order to be dilatory assuming of course that the meeting had a quorum (RONR pp. 342-343).

[George Mervosh]

Unless the meeting was strictly for ceremonial purposes where no business was to be conducted I as Chair would be inclined to rule a motion to Adjourn the meeting right after it was called to order to be dilatory assuming of course that the meeting had a quorum (RONR pp. 342-343).

Interesting opinion. I don't think it's dilatory, and could suggest a set of facts where you might be the one to move to adjourn right after the meeting is called to order.

[tctheatc]

Chris, would you still consider it dilatory if it passed, if it's what the majority of the assembly wanted to do?

[Chris Harrison]

Interesting opinion. I don't think it's dilatory, and could suggest a set of facts where you might be the one to move to adjourn right after the meeting is called to order.

Very little would surprise me these days but hey I'm game if you are.

Chris, would you still consider it dilatory if it passed, if it's what the majority of the assembly wanted to do?

If it is the will of the assembly then it would not be dilatory.

[George Mervosh]

Very little would surprise me these days but hey I'm game if you are.

If it is the will of the assembly then it would not be dilatory.

But you said it's introduction would be dilatory....so you don't know the will of the assembly when it's made.

[J. J.]

But you said it's introduction would be dilatory....so you don't know the will of the assembly when it's made.

Jacobs' Rule of Dilatory Motions: No motion is dilatory, that the assembly chooses to entertain (no matter how dilatory it really is).

In this case, I would allow a motion to prevent an assembly about to go out of existence from conducting any action, subject to appeal.

[tctheatc]

Exactly, and that was what I was getting at. The OP says this is the last town meeting before they switch over to the new form of assembly that was voted in. The reason, then, for moving to adjourn is to get right to the new meeting style and put to bed the old style that was voted out. I'm generally not in favor of avoiding a good debate, but give the OP credit for some chutzpah if he pulls it off!

[Chris Harrison]

But you said it's introduction would be dilatory....so you don't know the will of the assembly when it's made.

I should have went with my original response. Technically I believe it would still be dilatory even if it were the assembly's will to adopt the motion to Adjourn. As a quasi-comparison take a situation where the Chair has made a ruling where there legitimately can't be two reasonable opinions (the rules couldn't be more clear) and when the Appeal is ruled dilatory a member puts the question standing in his place and the assembly overrules the Chair's ruling. Even though the assembly's will was to hold to a unreasonable opinion wouldn't the Appeal still be technically dilatory?

In addition to the attempt to thwart the assembly's will it seems like p. 342 ll. 19-22 also says that a motion is dilatory if it is absurd or frivolous and under most circumstances I can imagine (including the OP's scenario) it would seem that a motion to Adjourn as soon as the meeting is called to order is pretty absurd.

[J. J.]

I should have went with my original response. Technically I believe it would still be dilatory even if it were the assembly's will to adopt the motion to Adjourn. As a quasi-comparison take a situation where the Chair has made a ruling where there legitimately can't be two reasonable opinions (the rules couldn't be more clear) and when the Appeal is ruled dilatory a member puts the question standing in his place and the assembly overrules the Chair's ruling. Even though the assembly's will was to hold to a unreasonable opinion wouldn't the Appeal still be technically dilatory?

In addition to the attempt to thwart the assembly's will it seems like p. 342 ll. 19-22 also says that a motion is dilatory if it is absurd or frivolous and under most circumstances I can imagine (including the OP's scenario) it would seem that a motion to Adjourn as soon as the meeting is called to order is pretty absurd.

I do not agree with either statement in all honest, therefor there are two reasonable opinions.

[Abd]

I should have went with my original response. Technically I believe it would still be dilatory even if it were the assembly's will to adopt the motion to Adjourn.

The motion to adjourn that was described is not dilatory at all. Under the conditions, there may be many members who would want that adjournment. It must be seconded, is not debatable, proceeds immediately to vote. To object to the motion would be dilatory!

That does not mean that the motion is wise. Why the majority, needed for adjournment, would want to confirm its disempowerment, I fail to understand. Perhaps a quorum has been obtained, and the members fear the arrival of Those Bad People who would Do Bad Things with this last meeting? Seems a tad unlikely.

[Guest Steven Goddu]

Thank you all for this discussion and information. This is the final Town Meeting for our town. Everything will be voted upon by selectmen and by vote of the people after this meeting. Last year 60 people came to the town meeting and voted $2.5MM in road work that was four days previously voted down by popular vote. This meeting is the last of its type.

My question is procedural. How do I make the motion? Just stand up and address the chair? Will there be no opportunity to discuss a motion to adjourn or is a vote called for at that time?

[Trina]

Thank you all for this discussion and information. This is the final Town Meeting for our town. Everything will be voted upon by selectmen and by vote of the people after this meeting. Last year 60 people came to the town meeting and voted $2.5MM in road work that was four days previously voted down by popular vote. This meeting is the last of its type.

My question is procedural. How do I make the motion? Just stand up and address the chair? Will there be no opportunity to discuss a motion to adjourn or is a vote called for at that time?

The motion to adjourn is not in order when another has the floor. It must be seconded, is not debatable or amendable, and requires majority vote for adoption.

[alanh49]

The motion to adjourn is not in order when another has the floor. It must be seconded, is not debatable or amendable, and requires majority vote for adoption.

You sure that a motion to adjourn is not debatable is this case? Since this is the last town meeting adopting a motion to adjourn will dissolve the assembly.

[Abd]

You sure that a motion to adjourn is not debatable is this case? Since this is the last town meeting adopting a motion to adjourn will dissolve the assembly.

I'd quite assume that those voting on the motion to adjourn would be amply aware of this, in the situation described. Someone can always make up a reason why adjourning is a Bad Idea. "If we adjourn, we will not address the Very Serious Problem we have, in time, and the sky will fall."

I love Town Meeting and believe that there are better fixes for Town Meeting problems than getting rid of one of the last bastions of direct democracy in the United States. I'd probably oppose that motion! But if a majority wants to adjourn immediately -- I can't see why they would want to do this, really -- I don't think I should try to *stop* them. After all, democracy and all that!

There is no way that this could slip through the cracks, unless people are paying no attention and the moderator wants to shut the thing down.

No substitute for being awake. "What was that? Motion to adjourn? But the meeting has just begun! That can't be right! Where's my coffee? Huh? Nobody objected and the chair ruled that we are adjourned? What do we do about that? Too late, the moderator left the room."

I think a presiding officer in the Texas Senate or House adjourned a meeting sort-of this way when he didn't want the body to consider vacating his office.... and refused to hear an appeal. The parliamentarian resigned, natch. I think the members were so flabbergasted it took them too much time to figure out what to do. It was the last session in the term, so the adjournment had an effect somewhat similar to adjournment here.

[Dan Honemann]

I'd quite assume that those voting on the motion to adjourn would be amply aware of this, in the situation described. Someone can always make up a reason why adjourning is a Bad Idea. "If we adjourn, we will not address the Very Serious Problem we have, in time, and the sky will fall."

I love Town Meeting and believe that there are better fixes for Town Meeting problems than getting rid of one of the last bastions of direct democracy in the United States. I'd probably oppose that motion! But if a majority wants to adjourn immediately -- I can't see why they would want to do this, really -- I don't think I should try to *stop* them. After all, democracy and all that!

There is no way that this could slip through the cracks, unless people are paying no attention and the moderator wants to shut the thing down.

No substitute for being awake. "What was that? Motion to adjourn? But the meeting has just begun! That can't be right! Where's my coffee? Huh? Nobody objected and the chair ruled that we are adjourned? What do we do about that? Too late, the moderator left the room."

I think a presiding officer in the Texas Senate or House adjourned a meeting sort-of this way when he didn't want the body to consider vacating his office.... and refused to hear an appeal. The parliamentarian resigned, natch. I think the members were so flabbergasted it took them too much time to figure out what to do. It was the last session in the term, so the adjournment had an effect somewhat similar to adjournment here.

This response completely misses the point, but that seems to be par for the course.

[Abd]

Thanks, Dan, for not deleting the missing-the-point post. What point was missed?

A motion to adjourn is not debatable. That's not only the Rules, but it makes, like most of the Rules, total and complete sense. To consider otherwise would be self-defeating, it would be like debating Previous Question. Uh, we want to end debate, not increase it over a new issue!

My response was to Alan's comment, and assumed it. Because questioners often come up with confused or confusing issues, like "But this will dissolve the assembly," I addressed the underlying concern, chattily.

It was proposed to rule the motion to adjourn dilatory, which would be dilatory. I.e., motion to adjourn is immediately handled without debate, so arguing about it, etc., simply delays process without any improvement. If it was presented properly, with recognition from the chair, and seconded, as I understand it -- if the 11th edition changes this, I'll revise my intention to buy it! -- it goes to vote, which can take a few seconds. A minute if the chair is super-careful.

That a motion to adjourn arises at the beginning of a meeting was also irrelevant. Perhaps the members want to watch the Super Bowl or something. They can do it, the reason for the motion is not relevant at all. What matters is the majority's decision, which will be rendered with no fuss at all.

The original post did not actually ask a question. People started chatting about it anyway, I didn't start that.

Our friend was asking for comment. So he or she got some comment.

^{Note: comment edited, per editions of Robert's Rules after the 19th century, a motion to adjourn which has the effect of dissolving the assembly, as with a mass meeting or the last meeting of a convention, is debatable. Whether or not this applies to the situation is ... debatable. The ignorant comment following what I've struck as incorrect, I have left, as a reminder for all time against making firm statements rooted in ignorance. My apologies, Alan.}

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks, Dan, for not deleting the missing-the-point post. What point was missed?

A motion to adjourn is not debatable. That's not only the Rules, but it makes, like most of the Rules, total and complete sense. To consider otherwise would be self-defeating, it would be like debating Previous Question. Uh, we want to end debate, not increase it over a new issue!

My response was to Alan's comment, and assumed it. Because questioners often come up with confused or confusing issues, like "But this will dissolve the assembly," I addressed the underlying concern, chattily.

It was proposed to rule the motion to adjourn dilatory, which would be dilatory. I.e., motion to adjourn is immediately handled without debate, so arguing about it, etc., simply delays process without any improvement. If it was presented properly, with recognition from the chair, and seconded, as I understand it -- if the 11th edition changes this, I'll revise my intention to buy it! -- it goes to vote, which can take a few seconds. A minute if the chair is super-careful.

That a motion to adjourn arises at the beginning of a meeting was also irrelevant. Perhaps the members want to watch the Super Bowl or something. They can do it, the reason for the motion is not relevant at all. What matters is the majority's decision, which will be rendered with no fuss at all.

The original post did not actually ask a question. People started chatting about it anyway, I didn't start that.

Our friend was asking for comment. So he or she got some comment.

The point of Alan H.'s post has nothing to do with whether or not the motion is dilatory. It refers to what, in your old version of the book, is listed on page 226 as one of those situations in which the motion to adjourn is not privileged, and is treated just like any other main motion.

Based solely on the facts as presented to us, his point may or may not be a good one, but at least it ought not be missed altogether.

[Trina]

The point of Alan H.'s post has nothing to do with whether or not the motion is dilitory. It refers to what, in your old version of the book, is listed on page 226 as one of those situations in which the motion to adjourn is not privileged, and is treated just like any other main motion.

Based solely on the facts as presented to us, his point may or may not be a good one, but at least it ought not be missed altogether.

You sure that a motion to adjourn is not debatable is this case? Since this is the last town meeting adopting a motion to adjourn will dissolve the assembly.

page 234 ll. 18-21 in the 11th... Thanks to Alan H. for bringing up this question. This situation (last town meeting, with no others to follow) does seem to fit those criteria in many ways.

A somewhat related question -- in general, if debate is allowed to start on an undebatable motion, must debate be allowed to continue? Does RONR address this issue?

edited: I'm going to take a stab at answering my question after reflection -- I think, once debate has actually been allowed to get off the ground, that a point of order that the particular motion is undebatable would no longer be timely.

[Bruce Lages]

I think, once debate has actually been allowed to get off the ground, that a point of order that the particular motion is undebatable would no longer be timely.

I'm not so sure about that, Trina. It seems to me that the act of debating an undebateable motion is the breach of the rules, and a point of order is appropriate as long as the breach is occurring. I don't know how you could object to debating an undebateable motion before any debate has actually occurred.

[Josh Martin]

edited: I'm going to take a stab at answering my question after reflection -- I think, once debate has actually been allowed to get off the ground, that a point of order that the particular motion is undebatable would no longer be timely.

I'd rethink that one. I assume you're using scenarios such as the lack of a second or when a motion is not in order in the existing parliamentary situation as parallel cases, but I think this is quite different. In those cases, there's only one breach - the motion or the lack of a second - and once the opportunity has passed, it's too late to complain.

This case would be more comparable to members making points which are not germane. Each instance is a separate breach of the rules. There's no need to listen to several more members ramble off-topic (or ramble on when an undebatable motion is pending) just because members failed to enforce the rules the first time.

[Abd]

The point of Alan H.'s post has nothing to do with whether or not the motion is dilatory. It refers to what, in your old version of the book, is listed on page 226 as one of those situations in which the motion to adjourn is not privileged, and is treated just like any other main motion.

Based solely on the facts as presented to us, his point may or may not be a good one, but at least it ought not be missed altogether.

Thanks for the reference, Dan. Yes, for others, this is what is in the 10th edition:

A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion except in the following cases:

[...]

3) When the effect of the motion to adjourn, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly with no provision for another meeting, as is usually the case in a mass meeting or the last meeting of a convention.

The Town Meeting that I participated in was governed by rules in Town Meeting Time, not Robert's Rules. Please understand that I learned Robert's Rules from an old edition available (i.e., 1876), where the distinction above did not exist. So it's some new-fangled invention....

I only bought the 10th edition fairly recently, and largely to deal with preferential voting. Were I serving current as a chair of an organization which specifies the current edition, I'd rush to buy the 11th, indeed. When I was serving as a chair for a national convention, I naively recommended that "Robert's Rules" be adopted, without specifying the edition. I don't think that any damage resulted, however.

As to what Robert's Rules (10th and 11th editions at least) prescribe, then, I was completely incorrect. However, the application remains unclear. It's not one of the two examples given, and we were given no clear idea of exactly what was replacing the Town Meeting; the replacement could be considered the continuation. (Town council?) And the assembly might have to resolve this issue, if the adopted rules allow the exception described above. Otherwise, a motion to adjourn may remain undebatable. "Dilatory" was raised by others, earlier, not by Alan.

^{(Edited: the questioner did clarify that the Town Meeting is ending, that decisions will be made by the Board of Selectmen, which already exists, or the voters directly, which also existed before, obviously. Frequently, though, the Board of Selectmen functions in the place of Town Meeting, between meetings. This can get complicated. The Board will probably have the continuing functions of Town Meeting, though. I personally think that in the situation described, the best decision by the moderator would be that the motion is undebatable. If I were a participant in Town Meeting for the last time, perhaps I've been doing it for thirty years or more, I'd not want to waste part of the last meeting debating whether or not to immediately adjourn! To me, the idea of quick adjournment here is kind of like stomping on a venerable institution after it's been knocked down.-- how long has this town had Town Meeting? it could be hundreds of years! Generally, what Town Meeting does can be undone. My guess is that the Board of Selectmen can stop it. But rules may vary.... Maybe I'm wrong. Did that expensive road project go ahead?)}

And the exception is old. From the 1915 edition:

The motion to adjourn (when unqualified) is always a privileged motion except when, for lack of provision for a future meeting, as in a mass meeting, or at the last meeting of a convention, its effect, if adopted, would be to dissolve the assembly permanently. In any organized society holding several regular meetings during the year, it is, when unqualified, always a privileged motion.

So I had my head stuck in the 19th century.

Thanks for clarifying this. To someone familiar with those rules, the comment by Alan made sense, but since the section was not quoted (or cited, even), not to others, I presume.

[Trina]

I'd rethink that one. I assume you're using scenarios such as the lack of a second or when a motion is not in order in the existing parliamentary situation as parallel cases, but I think this is quite different. In those cases, there's only one breach - the motion or the lack of a second - and once the opportunity has passed, it's too late to complain.

This case would be more comparable to members making points which are not germane. Each instance is a separate breach of the rules. There's no need to listen to several more members ramble off-topic (or ramble on when an undebatable motion is pending) just because members failed to enforce the rules the first time.

OK. I probably should have started a new thread with this question, and I apologize to the original poster for introducing more clutter. More important to his situation is probably the question of whether the motion to adjourn, under these particular circumstances, is properly debatable.

(My side question only comes in if it is not debatable, and if members jump in and start the process of debate anyway.)