Adjournment: Immediate upon commencement of meeting

[Abd]

This kind of got lost in the shuffle, it seems. I'm answering just to get the ball rolling again, here. I'm not a parliamentarian and am only familiar with the general principles. Others here know far more about the current edition(s) of Robert's Rules.

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?

What Town Meeting did last year or might do this time is not a matter of concern for the Rules of procedure. Town Meeting has whatever authority it has, for this last meeting. Specifics may depend on the state this town is in, as well as the specific rules of the Meeting. Town Meetings do not necessarily follow Robert's Rules of Order.

To move adjournment, one would need to gain the recognition of the chair (the "moderator," at some Town Meetings). Once recognized, then, one would simply say, "I move to adjourn." Giving a reason would be bad form at that point. There is some issue here over whether or not the motion would be debatable, under Robert's Rules. The chair will (probably) ask for a second. If there is no second, it's dead. If it is seconded, the chair will either proceed to a vote (undebatable) or open debate (debatable).

Be aware that the motion to adjourn would have been routine, at every meeting. So there may be an expectation that it is undebatable, as it would have been with a regular ongoing meeting. The moderator might declare it undebatable and proceed to vote. Someone wishing to challenge this, to allow debate, would need to ''immediately'' appeal from the ruling of the chair. I'd consider it necessary to know what local Rules apply.

It seems that you are attempting to prevent a legal body from conducting business that it has the right to conduct, based on an idea that it might do something foolish. That the body is being eliminated is really irrelevant. It's like a lame duck session of Congress. It still has the right to act. If it were desired to prevent this, the ballot question that eliminated Town Meeting should have so stated, that the effect was immediate.

One more comment: Town Meeting is the last vestige of direct democracy in America. It's a shame that it's being shut down here, apparently because it apparently made a "wrong decision," that got voters upset.

Voters make "wrong decisions" at the polls, often with inadequate information at hand, and boards of selectmen make "wrong decisions." Everybody makes mistakes. Town Meeting towns, however, tend to have a sense of "us" about what the towns do. When Town Meeting is lost, government becomes something that "they" do. It's a huge loss.

It was not stated what state this Town Meeting was in. I found a nice citizen's summary of Town Meeting procedures for Massachusetts. It covers many issues. For example:

Are Town Meetings run according to Roberts’ Rules of Order?

Some are; some are not. Please consult your town clerk.

[Guest Steven Goddu]

Again, Thank you all for this discussion.

Due to several factors, the town meeting was historically one of the largest (700-1000) as was the people's vote four days prior (7,000+). There was no need to make a motion to adjourn. Democracy worked well and there were plenty of good citizens attending to insure nothing really stupid slipped through. Lessons learned from the previous year.

The town has 16,000 registered voters. Generally 3,500 vote and only 130± attending the town meetings.

The new form of government is NH Senate Bill 2. Town meeting in February to petition items to be placed on the ballot then a vote of the people in March to decide all issues. 60% required to pass a bond article instead of the previously 66% requirement.

I think we still have democracy.

[Josh Martin]

It seems that you are attempting to prevent a legal body from conducting business that it has the right to conduct, based on an idea that it might do something foolish. That the body is being eliminated is really irrelevant. It's like a lame duck session of Congress. It still has the right to act. If it were desired to prevent this, the ballot question that eliminated Town Meeting should have so stated, that the effect was immediate.

The original poster's question is whether a motion to Adjourn immediately after the meeting was called to order is proper. It is, and it requires a majority vote for adoption. If a majority of the assembly wishes to not conduct any business, I don't see the problem. If the body wishes to assert its right to act it can vote down the motion to Adjourn.

One more comment: Town Meeting is the last vestige of direct democracy in America. It's a shame that it's being shut down here, apparently because it apparently made a "wrong decision," that got voters upset.

Voters make "wrong decisions" at the polls, often with inadequate information at hand, and boards of selectmen make "wrong decisions." Everybody makes mistakes. Town Meeting towns, however, tend to have a sense of "us" about what the towns do. When Town Meeting is lost, government becomes something that "they" do. It's a huge loss.

We have very little information to pass judgment on the decision of the town in question, and that is not the purpose of this forum anyway.

It was not stated what state this Town Meeting was in.

That's probably just as well, as it would simply distract us from the issue at hand. The state the town is in has no bearing on the application of Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised. While it is entirely correct that, as with any public body, it would be wise for to see what applicable rules and laws are in play, that is also true regardless of the state.

Again, Thank you all for this discussion.

Due to several factors, the town meeting was historically one of the largest (700-1000) as was the people's vote four days prior (7,000+). There was no need to make a motion to adjourn. Democracy worked well and there were plenty of good citizens attending to insure nothing really stupid slipped through. Lessons learned from the previous year.

The town has 16,000 registered voters. Generally 3,500 vote and only 130± attending the town meetings.

The new form of government is NH Senate Bill 2. Town meeting in February to petition items to be placed on the ballot then a vote of the people in March to decide all issues. 60% required to pass a bond article instead of the previously 66% requirement.

I think we still have democracy.

I won't comment on the merits of the town's proposed new system of government, but it seems clear that under RONR, the motion to Adjourn is in order and requires a majority vote for adoption. Based on the new facts provided, it seems to me that the motion is not debatable, as there will still be regular town meetings (although the power of this assembly will be significantly reduced).

Since this is a public body, it would be prudent to look into whether there are any applicable laws or special rules for the town on this subject, as supersede the rules of RONR. As noted, it is even possible that the town uses a different parliamentary authority.