New vs Old Business

[Guest Rosemary Priore]

During a board meeting at our church we had an item on our agenda regarding how much to pay for a service that had been provided on a love offering basis.  Such payment would be part of our churches tithe.  During that discussion a new member brought up that he did not like how our church currently alloted the annual tithe.  As Board President I requested that since that topic was not on our rather lengthy agenda that we table that question for our next meeting under New Business.  The new memebr is insisting ( for some reason) that since it was brought up at the previous meeting that it should be under Old Business.  Not that I think it matters, but is there an correct answer?

[Josh Martin]

The new memebr is insisting ( for some reason) that since it was brought up at the previous meeting that it should be under Old Business.  Not that I think it matters, but is there an correct answer?

 

It depends. Did the member actually make a motion at the first meeting? If so, and that motion was postponed, then it would come up under Unfinished Business and General Orders (specifically, under General Orders). If not, then it would come up under New Business.

 

There is no such thing as "Old Business." Also see FAQ #12 for clarification of "table" vs. postpone.

[Guest Edgar]

The proper term is "unfinished business" (not "old business"). As for "tabling", see FAQ #12.

 

It doesn't seem like what this new member brought up was unfinished business. But who knows.

[Guest Nancy N.]

I don't even see why dealing with alloting the tithe, which was the issue that the member was concerned with, would not be considered at the meeting that he brought it up in, unless when the agenda got to New Business, everyone had had enough and decided to adjourn.

 

  [Guest Edgar, Post 3:]

"It doesn't seem like what this new member brought up was unfinished business. But who knows."

 

No, it wasn't supposed to be unfinished business:  he brought it up as a new subject (but not when he should have).  The question here (aside from my first issue, dealing with his concern at the selfsame meeting at which he brought it up) is whether, once the assembly agreed to put it off to the next meeting, we could give it the status of Unfinished Business / General Orders, which would give it priority inthe order of businesss.

[jstackpo]

I The question here  is whether, once the assembly agreed to put it off to the next meeting, we could give it the status of Unfinished Business / General Orders, which would give it priority inthe order of businesss.

 

Yes, by definition, anything formally postponed (to the next meeting) becomes a General Order for that meeting. pp. 186 & 359.

 

And since almost any subsidiary motion can be transmogrified into an incidental main motion (p. 66), one could make an IMM to postpone discussion and possible action on a particular (hot?) topic (that the association had dealt with in the past) to the next meeting (thus making the topic a General Order then) even though there was no main motion related to the topic pending at the time.

 

This "trick" could be used as a sort of preemptive strike by a member who did not want the "hot topic" to come up at the current meeting at all.

[Dan Honemann]

The facts, as presented, are much too fuzzy to provide any meaningful response. Informal discussion of a subject is not something that can be postponed.

[jstackpo]

I'm not proposing to postpone informal discussion; I'm proposing to postpone any discussion, motions, &c. on the topic, even before anyone brings up the topic.

 

(I know it the troublesome topic is lurking out there and I don't want it to come up until I, and my friends, have our ducks all in a row.  I may lose, on the vote to postpone, but that's democracy.)

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not proposing to postpone informal discussion; I'm proposing to postpone any discussion, motions, &c. on the topic, even before anyone brings up the topic.

 

(I know it the troublesome topic is lurking out there and I don't want it to come up until I, and my friends, have our ducks all in a row.  I may lose, on the vote to postpone, but that's democracy.)

 

And I'm saying your "proposal" is not in order.

[jstackpo]

Does your assertion also apply to RONR p. 101, lines 22-23?

 

I'll save you the trouble of answering.  Here you are:  "No."

 

Cheers of the Season!

[Dan Honemann]

Does your assertion also apply to RONR p. 101, lines 22-23?

 

I'll save you the trouble of answering.  Here you are:  "No."

 

Cheers of the Season!

 

But why the reference to page 101, lines 22-23? A proposal "to postpone any discussion, motions, &c. on the topic, even before anyone brings up the topic" is not a proposal relating to "further steps in dealing with a substantive matter in which the assembly's involvement has begun earlier."

[jstackpo]

Well, I read "Further steps..." as describing much the same scenario:  The association has dealt with some "substantive matter" in the past, nothing is immediately pending dealing with same matter, but I have gotten wind that something may well come up in the present meeting - those "further steps" - which are "lurking".

 

But I (and my friends) are not ready right now to respond to the issue, to those "further steps", so I move to postpone any "action...that may relate..." (line 20) to the "substantive matter".  Cut 'em off at the pass!

 

If you wish to insist that only pending matters can be postponed, (i.e., those "further steps" have to be actually moved before they can be postponed) then what is the point of letting "postpone" become an Incidental Main Motion?  Just what is left to postpone as an IMM?

 

Would it be best, oh moderator, to move this over to the "Advanced Discussion" section, as it has rather substantially departed from Rosemary's original question?

[Josh Martin]

Well, I read "Further steps..." as describing much the same scenario:  The association has dealt with some "substantive matter" in the past, nothing is immediately pending dealing with same matter, but I have gotten wind that something may well come up in the present meeting - those "further steps" - which are "lurking".

 

But I (and my friends) are not ready right now to respond to the issue, to those "further steps", so I move to postpone any "action...that may relate..." (line 20) to the "substantive matter".  Cut 'em off at the pass!

 

The motion to Postpone to a Certain Time cannot be used for this purpose, but the same object may be accomplished by moving to make the matter in question an order of the day. This is discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pg. 366.

 

If you wish to insist that only pending matters can be postponed, (i.e., those "further steps" have to be actually moved before they can be postponed) then what is the point of letting "postpone" become an Incidental Main Motion?  Just what is left to postpone as an IMM?

 

"When a motion proposes to postpone a matter that is not pending—for example, the hearing of a committee's report—such a motion is not the subsidiary motion to Postpone, but is an incidental main motion (10)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 180).

[jstackpo]

"When a motion proposes to postpone a matter that is not pending—for example, the hearing of a committee's report—such a motion is not the subsidiary motion to Postpone, but is an incidental main motion (10)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 180).

 How does your quotation from the book differ from what I want to do: i.e., to postpone consideration at this time of "the matter"  --  those "lurking" issues  --  to the next meeting in full recognition that the "lurking issues" are not pending at the time?

 

Who knows, those "lurking issues" may well be in that committee's report.

[Guest Edgar]

Would it be best, oh moderator, to move this over to the "Advanced Discussion" section, as it has rather substantially departed from Rosemary's original question?

 

I don't think the Wrathful One can (or should) "move" part of a thread from one (sub)forum to another but if you're asking if you should start a new thread on the "advanced" forum I think the stock answer would be . . . you guessed it . . . nothing in RONR prohibits it.

[Josh Martin]

 How does your quotation from the book differ from what I want to do: i.e., to postpone consideration at this time of "the matter"  --  those "lurking" issues  --  to the next meeting in full recognition that the "lurking issues" are not pending at the time?

 

As I understand it, the "lurking issues" you are referring to have not come before the assembly, nor has the assembly yet determined that they shall come before the assembly at some time in the future.

 

An assembly may postpone an order of the day which is not currently before the assembly, but it may not postpone an issue which may potentially become an order of the day at some time in the future.

[Weldon Merritt]

An assembly may postpone an order of the day which is not currently before the assembly, but it may not postpone an issue which may potentially become an order of the day at some time in the future.

I agree that an assumbly may not postpone something that is neither currently before the assembly ror already set as an order of the day. But in some instances at least, a matter that is not yet pending may be set as a general order for a future meeting. For exanple, a byalws amendment for which notice has been given 'becomes a general order for the meeting at which it is to be considered." RONR, p. ll. 26-27. The fact that General Orders includes "[m]atters that were postponed to, or otherwise made general orders for, the present meeting" (RONR, p. 359, ll. 1-2 [emphasis added]) leads me to believe that other matters besides just proposed bylaws amendments may be made general orders for a future meeting, even when they were not already pending at an earlier meeting.

[jstackpo]

As I understand it, the "lurking issues" you are referring to have not come before the assembly, nor has the assembly yet determined that they shall come before the assembly at some time in the future.

 

 

Not  quite what I had in mind.  When I (and the book) said "substantive matter ...[about which]... involvement has begun earlier" (p. 101) I took that to mean a matter about which motions had (earlier, before the current meeting) been made and disposed of but the issue wasn't fully settled as yet.  New motions ("further steps") are under development (either in committees - no reports yet - or I have just heard of them grapevine-wise) that I (and my friends) are not in a position to deal with right now, at the current meeting.  Thus the issue is "lurking" and I (and my friends) move the IMM to postpone all matters relating to "further steps" until the next meeting.  They (if the proponents wish) would then come up under General Orders next meeting.

 

And responding to Weldon (#16, who was posting while I was typing and having lunch - no fair!) how would you distinguish between a  motion to "postpone" (whether an IMM or not) and "a motion to make a matter a General Order" since the both have EXACTLY the same effect? 

 

The only "real" difference is that "postpone" has a full set of standard descriptive characteristics (SDC) while "make a matter..." is a sort of "stealth" motion - mentioned in the book, but nowhere fully described with an SDC set. (There are some 20 or so of those stealth motions in the book.)

[Weldon Merritt]

And responding to Weldon (#16, who was posting while I was typing and having lunch - no fair!) how would you distinguish between a  motion to "postpone" (whether an IMM or not) and "a motion to make a matter a General Order" since the both have EXACTLY the same effect? 

I agree they both have the same effect, so there is no practical difference between them. But appaerently the book makes a distinction, since it referes to maters being "postponed to or otherwise made general orders for, the present meeting." While I basically agree with you hypothetical startegy, I am not sure that "postpone" is the proper terminolgy.

[jstackpo]

I would love to see a few more explicit examples of those "otherwise" made methods of making general orders.  P. 365 lists three (and neglects to mention #4: giving notice of a bylaw amendment, p. 596).

 

#2, on that page, seems pretty close to what I want to do  --  I'll settle for a general order via majority vote.  All I wanted to do was prevent discussion, &c. of the lurking issue for a while.

 

But a sort of philosophical question:  How can a "question that is not pending" be sufficiently precisely identified to assure me (and my friends) that "the issue" that I want delayed (postponed?) will indeed be cut off at the pass by the assembly adopting my "make a general order" motion ("postpone" seems a cleaner way of describing it)?

[Josh Martin]

The fact that General Orders includes "[m]atters that were postponed to, or otherwise made general orders for, the present meeting" (RONR, p. 359, ll. 1-2 [emphasis added]) leads me to believe that other matters besides just proposed bylaws amendments may be made general orders for a future meeting, even when they were not already pending at an earlier meeting.

 

Yes, this is correct.

 

Not  quite what I had in mind.  When I (and the book) said "substantive matter ...[about which]... involvement has begun earlier" (p. 101) I took that to mean a matter about which motions had (earlier, before the current meeting) been made and disposed of but the issue wasn't fully settled as yet.  New motions ("further steps") are under development (either in committees - no reports yet - or I have just heard of them grapevine-wise) that I (and my friends) are not in a position to deal with right now, at the current meeting.  Thus the issue is "lurking" and I (and my friends) move the IMM to postpone all matters relating to "further steps" until the next meeting.  They (if the proponents wish) would then come up under General Orders next meeting.

 

If a committee is to report at the current meeting, the report may be postponed to the next meeting. This is an IMM if the report is not pending.

 

If further developments have just been heard of "grapevine-wise," then they may not be postponed, but the same object may be accomplished by setting them as general orders for the next meeting.

 

And responding to Weldon (#16, who was posting while I was typing and having lunch - no fair!) how would you distinguish between a  motion to "postpone" (whether an IMM or not) and "a motion to make a matter a General Order" since the both have EXACTLY the same effect? 

 

An assembly may postpone a motion which is pending or which is an order of the day. Conversely, you don't really "postpone" a new subject, although you can make it an order of the day for the next meeting.

 

And I'd note that, from a parliamentary perspective, those "lurking issues" are new subjects, notwithstanding that the assembly has recently taken action on similar issues.

 

#2, on that page, seems pretty close to what I want to do  --  I'll settle for a general order via majority vote.  All I wanted to do was prevent discussion, &c. of the lurking issue for a while.

 

But a sort of philosophical question:  How can a "question that is not pending" be sufficiently precisely identified to assure me (and my friends) that "the issue" that I want delayed (postponed?) will indeed be cut off at the pass by the assembly adopting my "make a general order" motion ("postpone" seems a cleaner way of describing it)?

 

The next page clarifies this issue.

 

"Motions in similar forms can also be used to make a question that is not pending a general order. In this connection, however, it should be noted that a majority can thus prevent a matter from coming before the assembly until a future time, but after a majority has taken such action, nothing less than a two-thirds vote can change it unless it is reconsidered (37). If a main motion to make a question that is not pending an order of the day for a future time is introduced, any member who would prefer to consider the matter immediately should speak in debate against the motion that would make it an order of the day. If that motion is voted down, he can then introduce the subject of the proposed order as a main question." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 366).

[jstackpo]

OK, so I CAN do what I want:  There is a "stealth" motion in the book "To Make ...[some non-pending specified "matter"] ... a General Order for the next meeting [or whenever, but not past the next meeting]" which does exactly the same thing as "Postpone".

If Josh et al. want to insist that this stealth motion is not the same thing as an IMM to "Postpone", thats fine by me.  But I would like to see a set of SDCs for this otherwise undescribed motion.

 

And if the two motions are really distinct, what good is the IMM Postpone?  What does it do that the stealth motion cannot? Or vice versa?

[Dan Honemann]

OK, so I CAN do what I want:  There is a "stealth" motion in the book "To Make ...[some non-pending specified "matter"] ... a General Order for the next meeting [or whenever, but not past the next meeting]" which does exactly the same thing as "Postpone".

If Josh et al. want to insist that this stealth motion is not the same thing as an IMM to "Postpone", thats fine by me.  But I would like to see a set of SDCs for this otherwise undescribed motion.

 

And if the two motions are really distinct, what good is the IMM Postpone?  What does it do that the stealth motion cannot? Or vice versa?

 

The motions described on page 365, lines 24-29, have been in the book for quite some time, and to the best of my knowledge no one has heretofore felt a need to refer to such motions as "stealth motions". 

 

Forms for making such motions are provided on page 366. Please note that these bear no resemblance to what you have been suggesting.

[Dan Honemann]

During a board meeting at our church we had an item on our agenda regarding how much to pay for a service that had been provided on a love offering basis.  Such payment would be part of our churches tithe.  During that discussion a new member brought up that he did not like how our church currently alloted the annual tithe.  As Board President I requested that since that topic was not on our rather lengthy agenda that we table that question for our next meeting under New Business.  The new memebr is insisting ( for some reason) that since it was brought up at the previous meeting that it should be under Old Business.  Not that I think it matters, but is there an correct answer?

 

"If brief consultation during a meeting leads to an informal understanding that a certain subject should be "brought up at the next meeting," that does not make it unfinished business. Instead, the matter should be introduced at the next meeting as new business ..." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 360, ll. 7-11).

[George Mervosh]

There is a "stealth" motion in the book

 

You've been reading far too many of J.J.'s articles over the years, I'm sure he mentioned it in one of them.  If not, he certainly will now. 

[jstackpo]

I have a list of about 20, compiled originally by T. Page Johnson.  21 if you count "Make ... a General Order..."

 

"Stealth" means (only) that a motion is mentioned and perhaps partially described but does not have a full list of SDCs nor is listed in the "tinted" pages.  "Order a Recount" is one such.  "Remove from Office" is another.