Possible Action on Motions

[Guest Fallopia Simms]

Does the agenda need to state "possible action" in relation to a "discussion" that may result in possible action? What if a discussion that has been agendized ensues with no intent of making a motion. During the debate a member announces that "he/she moves" and decides to create an action out of the discussion that has just been had. Would the committee then need to wait until the next month or next quarter to make a motion on the matter because the agenda did not read "possible action" even though it did read "discussion"?

[Dan Honemann]

No. In committees, informal discussion of a subject is permitted even if no motion is pending, but there should be as little of this as possible if the committee intends to accomplish something other than sitting around thinking great thoughts.

[Gary c Tesser]

OP Simms might be asking whether, when the announced agenda includes an item for "discussion", it is allowed to blindside sleepy attendees and innocent naive absentees by up and proposing to act ( "'he/she moves'", technically) on the spot.  OP Simms?

[Dan Honemann]

OP Simms might be asking whether, when the announced agenda includes an item for "discussion", it is allowed to blindside sleepy attendees and innocent naive absentees by up and proposing to act ( "'he/she moves'", technically) on the spot.  OP Simms?

 

How in the world can adoption of an agenda blindside absentees?

[jstackpo]

If the agenda wasn't adopted (at the start of the meeting) then it has no controlling power and the motion would be perfectly proper.

 

It is one of the duties of membership to stay awake in meetings, as well as show up in the first place.

 

And if the agenda was adopted (and it was really clear that this was a "discussion only" item, not a good idea as noted above) the agenda could be amended right then and there.

[Dan Honemann]

In my opinion, adoption of an agenda which purports to limit a particular subject to "discussion only", even in a committee, is most likely going to be out of order, or if not out of order, will require a two-thirds vote for its adoption (the details will make a difference).

[Gary c Tesser]

Yes, men.  But I take OP Simms's "What if a discussion that has been agendized ..." to mean it's very likely that it is the custom of this organization to distribute a list of anticipated topics ahead of time, and that it has become the expectation of the membership that no other items will be brought up, and especially that if an agendized item is "discussion", per se, it would be dirty pool to jump up (as if on marijuana or satanism or both) and propose acting on the discussion. 

 

Yes, of course technically it would be in order.  And they all will have learned something from this eye-opening discussion, especially if Guest Simms comes back to her group waving a print-out and informing them cheerfully (RONR, 11th Ed, p. xlix, pronounced "slicks", towards the bottom) that they've been doing it wrong up till now.

 

Guest Simms?

(Guest Simms, I'm drowning here.)

How in the world can adoption of an agenda blindside absentees?

 

In short, I think that the reply that Guest_Simms needs to her questions, is, to both, "No, and your group really should know this."

 

N. B.  Speaking of marijuana, I was going to buy a package of hot dogs yesterday when I noticed in the fine print that the ingredients included timonium nitrate.  Passing on that, I can tell you!

[Edgar Guest]

 . . .  it has become the expectation of the membership that no other items will be brought up, and especially that if an agendized item is "discussion", per se, it would be dirty pool to jump up . . . and propose acting on the discussion. 

 

One member "jumping up" doesn't force the attendees to vote if their custom is not to do so when "discussion" (only?) is on the agenda. Or they can simply vote "no".

 

But. more properly, members should assume that voting may take place since making decisions ("conducting business") is why assemblies meet in the first place. If they just want to talk they can get together in the bar across the street and talk 'til closing time.

[Gary c Tesser]

...  But. more properly, members should assume that voting may take place since making decisions ("conducting business") is why assemblies meet in the first place. If they just want to talk they can get together in the bar across the street and talk 'til closing time.

 

My point is that, looking at Guest Simms's original post, I think this group does not assume it, and does not even have an inkling of it, and that's the context in which Guest Simms is asking advice.

 

In other words, that's the hand she's been dealt; and it is of limited usefulness to tell her her group is playing the game wrong, or is playing the wrong game.  At least, while that is what we have been telling her here, that's not what she needs first.  That's all I'm saying.

[Dan Honemann]

My point is that, looking at Guest Simms's original post, I think this group does not assume it, and does not even have an inkling of it, and that's the context in which Guest Simms is asking advice.

 

In other words, that's the hand she's been dealt; and it is of limited usefulness to tell her her group is playing the game wrong, or is playing the wrong game.  At least, while that is what we have been telling her here, that's not what she needs first.  That's all I'm saying.

 

Yeah, we know that's all you're saying. That's the problem.

[Gary c Tesser]

Yeah, we know that's all you're saying. That's the problem.

^{Fear the Wrath of Dan}

 

I hope you don't think this cuts it as wrath.  It's barely exasperation.

[Guest Fallopia Simms]

So I'll be more explicit. 

I agendize a discussion on (let's say) painting the sidewalks purple on my block. While we were discussing the issue everyone that had attended really liked the idea. I moved at that meeting that we as a Board paint our sidewalks purple on our block. The one person who rather had the sidewalks painted oranged exclaimed that 'though the discussion had been properly agendized, there was no mention of "possible action" on the agenda.' This, she goes on to say "doesn't allow other neighbors knowledge that more than ONLY a discussion would be taking place that evening and is out of order according to Robert's."

 

As Edgar said: But. more properly, members should assume that voting may take place since making decisions ("conducting business") is why assemblies meet in the first place. If they just want to talk they can get together in the bar across the street and talk 'til closing time.

 

If a discussion is agendized, isn't it to be assumed that an action just may be taken? Or must your agendas always reserve a line after a discussion that "possible action" may be taken if it isn't just to cover all of your bases?

 

Can anyone reference this for me? I can't find it anywhere. Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Gary Novosielski]

It's up to the "one person" making that ridiculous claim to cite her source, not up to you to prove it's not in there.  By the way, it's not in there.

 

The rules in RONR do not permit discussion on an item without a motion.  A motion is a proposal that something be done.  So if the rules in RONR are followed, there will never be such an animal as a Discussion Only item. 

 

The whole purpose of RONR is to ensure that societies efficiently and effectively reach decisions, and to ensure that they do not waste hours in fruitless discussions with no action to show for it.

[jstackpo]

It's up to the "one person" making that ridiculous claim to cite her source, not up to you to prove it's not in there.  By the way, it's not in there.

 

The rules in RONR do not permit discussion on an item without a motion.  A motion is a proposal that something be done.  So if the rules in RONR are followed, there will never be such an animal as a Discussion Only item. 

 

The whole purpose of RONR is to ensure that societies efficiently and effectively reach decisions, and to ensure that they do not waste hours in fruitless discussions with no action to show for it.

 

 

Except... there is a "heading" - p. 362 - for "Good of the Order" in which people may indeed waste time bringing non-decision matters up.  But note:  this is after new business is completed - p.361 - so people who don't care to waste time could go home with the assurance that no decisions will indeed be made by those who stay at the bar.

 

You don't need (and shouldn't call) an entire  formal meeting, in the RONR sense, just to talk about something.

[Dan Honemann]

Except... there is a "heading" - p. 362 - for "Good of the Order" in which people may indeed waste time bringing non-decision matters up.  But note:  this is after new business is completed - p.361 - so people who don't care to waste time could go home with the assurance that no decisions will indeed be made by those who stay at the bar.

 

You don't need (and shouldn't call) an entire  formal meeting, in the RONR sense, just to talk about something.

 

A society may include such a heading in its order of business (RONR does not), and nothing in RONR prevents the making of motions under such a heading.

[Gary Novosielski]

A society may include such a [Good of the Order] heading in its order of business (RONR does not), and nothing in RONR prevents the making of motions under such a heading.

 

Besides, this was a committee meeting so, all of the clarifying questions, answers, and conjectures notwithstanding, the question was correctly answered back in Post #2

[Guest Fallopia Simms]

Post #2 states that it was an informal discussion, which it is not since it has been agendized and announced. My question, which I believe Post #13 answers, in order to make a motion out of a discussion would one have to literally announce that a motion may take place that evening by stating possible action.

[Gary Novosielski]

Post #2 states that it was an informal discussion, which it is not since it has been agendized and announced. My question, which I believe Post #13 answers, in order to make a motion out of a discussion would one have to literally announce that a motion may take place that evening by stating possible action.

If it weren't an informal discussion, then according to RONR it wouldn't have been allowed in the first place.. 

 

It seems to me that the question you ought to be asking is: According to RONR, is it in order to place items on an agenda for discussion only?  The answer to that question is No.  All items duly considered in a meeting, except those that explicitly require previous notice, are subject to action at that meeting.  The problem is that if you list an item as "discussion only" you are misleading members into thinking that it can't be acted upon. 

 

So the thing to do is to stop misleading them by avoiding the practice in the first place.