Guest Patty Posted January 4, 2013 at 01:12 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 at 01:12 AM When someone brings up a topic during "new buisness" which was not on the agenda is it within the rules to then, make a motion and have a vote on that topic, if it was not on the agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 4, 2013 at 01:32 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 at 01:32 AM When someone brings up a topic during "new buisness" which was not on the agenda is it within the rules to then, make a motion and have a vote on that topic, if it was not on the agenda?Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 4, 2013 at 01:59 AM Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 at 01:59 AM Although I must suggest it's not proper to "bring up a topic" and then make a motion, but rather to make the motion, which is sort-a kind-a how the topic is "brought up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 4, 2013 at 03:08 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 at 03:08 PM When someone brings up a topic during "new buisness" which was not on the agenda is it within the rules to then, make a motion and have a vote on that topic, if it was not on the agenda?The purpose of the heading New Business is to introduce new items of business, which come in the form of motions. Setting certain matters on an agenda does not prevent business from arising under New Business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rthib Posted January 4, 2013 at 11:58 PM Report Share Posted January 4, 2013 at 11:58 PM It was on the Agenda. Under the topic "New Business". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 5, 2013 at 12:12 AM Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 at 12:12 AM It was on the Agenda. Under the topic "New Business".That information is not in keeping with Patty's hypothetical question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted January 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 at 11:28 AM Robert, on 04 January 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:It was on the Agenda. Under the topic "New Business".That information is not in keeping with Patty's hypothetical question.It seems to me that it was, although Guest_Patty didn't realize it. How do you figure it wasn't?C.T. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 5, 2013 at 02:57 PM Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 at 02:57 PM It seems to me that it was, although Guest_Patty didn't realize it. How do you figure it wasn't?C.T. 1Patty stated twice that it was NOT on the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 5, 2013 at 03:02 PM Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 at 03:02 PM Patty stated twice that it was NOT on the agenda.I suspect that the point being made by Robert and Nancy is that if "new business" is on the agenda, anything qualifying as new business is on the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted January 5, 2013 at 03:15 PM Report Share Posted January 5, 2013 at 03:15 PM I suspect that the point being made by Robert and Nancy is that if "new business" is on the agenda, anything qualifying as new business is on the agenda. Ah, so Robert and Nancy are committing the capital crime of considering "agenda" and "order of business" to be inherently synonymous and incapable of coexisting. I suggest we throw the book at them, opened to section 41 of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.