Guest marycathb@yahoo.com Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:40 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:40 PM During a Special called meeting is it allowable to suspend the rules and add an additional item to the agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:45 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:45 PM During a Special called meeting is it allowable to suspend the rules and add an additional item to the agenda? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:47 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:47 PM George - not even if every member of the assembly that is meeting is in attendance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:52 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 03:52 PM George - not even if every member of the assembly that is meeting is in attendance? Bruce, that might be an issue if the reason for the rule (p. 93, lines 3-4) that restricts the business announced in the meeting's call is clearly to protect absentees. That does look plausible to me, and it looks to me as if that's what you have in mind. But I haven't thought it through. And the book doesn't give a reason. What do you think? (George is a PRP, but you have a boat.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted July 3, 2014 at 04:05 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 04:05 PM I'm going by the statement on p.263, l.29 - p.264, l.5.: Rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, beccause the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules requiring the presence of a quorum, restricting business transacted at a special meeting to that mentioned in the call of the meeting, and requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." (bold italics emphasis mine) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 3, 2014 at 04:08 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 04:08 PM George - not even if every member of the assembly that is meeting is in attendance? I've never seen this mythical creature you describe, but of course. Plus I also don't want to add that caveat to every question involving the rights of absentees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted July 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM Report Share Posted July 3, 2014 at 10:23 PM I'm going by the statement on p.263, l.29 - p.264, l.5.:... Thank you, Bruce: sorry, I had forgotten.(Man, you like to type!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 4, 2014 at 02:54 PM Report Share Posted July 4, 2014 at 02:54 PM But the call of a special meeting is not the same as an agenda. If there is enough business provided in the call so that the assembly adopts (at the meeting) an agenda for the meeting, then it is possible that some item related to the call was not originally included in the agenda and could then be added by suspending the rules. This possibility is not mythical, merely theoretical. ☺ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 5, 2014 at 01:13 AM Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 at 01:13 AM ... some item related to the call was not originally included in the agenda and could then be added by suspending the rules.... What rule would need to be suspended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 5, 2014 at 08:48 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 at 08:48 PM What rule would need to be suspended? It doesn't matter. The magical motion to suspend the rules automatically covers whatever rules needs to be suspended, whether anyone can identify that rule or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 5, 2014 at 09:06 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 at 09:06 PM It doesn't matter. The magical motion to suspend the rules automatically covers whatever rules needs to be suspended, whether anyone can identify that rule or not. If no one can identify a rule that would be broken if they don't suspend the rules, then why bother suspending the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 5, 2014 at 09:23 PM Report Share Posted July 5, 2014 at 09:23 PM If no one can identify a rule that would be broken if they don't suspend the rules, then why bother suspending the rules? I didn't say no one could identify the rule. I said it didn't matter whether they could or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 6, 2014 at 02:53 AM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 02:53 AM What rule would need to be suspended?It doesn't matter. The magical motion to suspend the rules automatically covers whatever rules needs to be suspended, whether anyone can identify that rule or not. I know that. But it would be good for an aspiring parliamentarian, or anyone else, to know what rule needs to be suspended, if only to know that it is necessary to suspend the rules at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 6, 2014 at 03:56 AM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 03:56 AM I didn't say no one could identify the rule. I said it didn't matter whether they could or not. How can you say it doesn't matter? There are some rules that can't be suspended, so maybe there is a rule that they don't know what it is but they suspend the rules for good measure, just because there might be a rule and they don't want to violated it. But oops, it turns out that the rule they can't identify happens to be one that can't be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 6, 2014 at 04:06 AM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 04:06 AM What rule would need to be suspended?If no motion is pending, an adopted agenda can be amended even without suspending the rules, but it may sometimes be more convenient to do as the O. P. suggested, i.e., to "suspend the rules and add" some item to the agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 6, 2014 at 11:03 AM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 11:03 AM If no motion is pending, an adopted agenda can be amended even without suspending the rules, but it may sometimes be more convenient to do as the O. P. suggested, i.e., to "suspend the rules and add" some item to the agenda. If this motion to "suspend the rules and add" some item to the agenda (made when no motion is pending) is defeated, can a motion then be made to amend the agenda by adding the same item, since the defeated motion was a motion to Suspend the Rules and the new motion is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted? I would suppose so. (Marycathb, I suggest you stick with the answer in post #2. Odds are it's spot-on.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 6, 2014 at 06:20 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 06:20 PM If this motion to "suspend the rules and add" some item to the agenda (made when no motion is pending) is defeated, can a motion then be made to amend the agenda by adding the same item, since the defeated motion was a motion to Suspend the Rules and the new motion is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted? I would suppose so. I agree. After all, obviously the motion failed simply because there are some members who won't vote for adding anything to the agenda without first debating the question (of adding the item to the agenda) at length. :-) If the motion to amend the agenda is also defeated, then a member who voted against amending can still move to Reconsider. And, failing all that, the item can simply be moved, without having been added to the agenda, after the rest of the items on the agenda have been gone through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 6, 2014 at 09:44 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 09:44 PM But what's the rule that might need to be suspended? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted July 6, 2014 at 09:54 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 09:54 PM ("Shut Up, Gary" may be commonly heard in pseudo-parliamentary circles or anywhere else I happen to find myself, but it is an injunction or policy, not a rule.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted July 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM How can you say it doesn't matter? I'm as incredulous as you are. But, as I understand it (and I hope I'm wrong), you can make a motion to suspend the rules (note the plural form) without identifying the rule which needs (or rules which need) to be suspended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 7, 2014 at 12:49 AM Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 at 12:49 AM I'm as incredulous as you are. But, as I understand it (and I hope I'm wrong), you can make a motion to suspend the rules (note the plural form) without identifying the rule which needs (or rules which need) to be suspended. RONR says as much (p. 262, ll. 1-2). But what's the rule that might need to be suspended? If a motion to suspend the rules and add some item to the agenda is made when no motion is pending, the rules that say that such a motion is debatable and amendable are being suspended. On the other hand, I suspect that a motion "to suspend the rules and take from the table the question relating to ..." (see p. 262, ll. 12-13), if made at a time when it would be in order to simply move to take the question from the table, would be out of order (assuming that anyone would be silly enough to make it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted July 7, 2014 at 03:26 AM Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 at 03:26 AM I realize that RONR doesn't call for the rule(s) that must be suspended to be mentioned in the motion, but p. 262 ff. talks about "the object" of the motion to suspend the rules. Even though the object is not stated in the motion, decisions have to be made based on the object of the motion. To me, that says that the object is important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 7, 2014 at 01:14 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2014 at 01:14 PM I take a few days off to hang out on the lake and this happens? (Marycathb, I suggest you stick with the answer in post #2. Odds are it's spot-on.) Ah, some sanity I see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.