Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums
mikalac

Adjourn to prevent my motions?

Recommended Posts

I agree with Josh that simply ending the order of business with "Adjournment" does not count as establishing a time for adjourning.

 

Even if an adjournment is included on an agenda or order of business, I don't think it is ever treated as an ordinary general order, because there are specific rules in RONR that apply to scheduled recesses and adjournments. And I think it's rather clear from pages 234 and 240-241 that the assembly can always adjourn by majority vote (whenever a motion to Adjourn the motion to adjourn is in order according to the precedence of motions), even if an adjournment has been scheduled for a later time.

 

In my opinion, if a time for adjourning has been previously established, as in the instant case, a motion to adjourn before that time is simply a main motion, and is out of order while business is pending. A question remains, however, as to exactly what is meant by the phrase "while business is pending."

 

A further question remains as to what vote is required in order to adopt such a motion to adjourn. In this connection, I think that what is said on page 241, lines 4-6, with respect to adoption by majority vote is intended to relate only to those situations in which another meeting in continuance of the session has been scheduled. No. 3 on tinted pages 6-7, however, appears to say, without qualification, that such a motion may be adopted by majority vote.

 

Perhaps I should hasten to add that I am entirely in sympathy with the view that, if such a motion to adjourn is made at a time when it is in order, it should require only a majority vote for its adoption.

 

Other than your italicized phrase, I completely agree that "if a time for adjourning has been previously established ... a motion to adjourn before that time is simply a main motion, and is out of order while business is pending." In post #21, I really meant to say what it says now (as shown above), which admittedly is still a bit cryptic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Any attempts to do away with the revision (or to speed up its consideration) will require a 2/3 vote or will be debatable. The motions for the Previous Question and to Limit Debate require a 2/3 vote. Postpone to a Certain Time is debatable and, if I understand correctly that the owners only meet annually, is not in order unless the assembly first schedules an adjourned meeting. Commit is debatable. Postpone Indefinitely is debatable and opens the main question to debate.

 

Based on the facts provided, if I was one of the members who wished to dispose of the revision, I would probably use Postpone Indefinitely followed by the Previous Question if I felt that I had a 2/3 vote on my side. If not, I'd use Commit.

 

Me: One way or another, my bylaws revision is going down to defeat. Therefore, to live to fight another day and to prevent meeting turmoil, I would like to preempt these motions with the actions described below:

 

Me: "I move that a special owner's meeting be held on or before July 25, 2015 for the sole purpose of revising the bylaws." (Requires a majority vote to adopt.)

 

Me: "I move the Previous Question on my bylaws revision." (Requires less than a 2/3 vote to defeat.)

 

Me: "I give notice that at the next owner's meeting, I will move to revise the bylaws."

 

Are the above actions in order?

 

Thanks, Norm

 

 

 

 

No, I don't think so. Even assuming your bylaws allow for the membership to schedule special meetings (they may or may not), I believe such a motion would be a main motion, and would therefore not be in order while the revision is pending. Additionally, the method of providing notice may not be proper. Your bylaws may have special rules for how to provide notice, and even if not, giving notice orally works by giving notice for the next regular meeting, if that meeting is within a quarterly interval.

 

I would instead propose the following:

  • Move to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn to set up an adjourned meeting to be held at the call of the chair, but to be held no later than July 25, 2015. This requires a majority vote and is amendable, but not debatable.
  • Move to Postpone the revision until the adjourned meeting. This requires a majority vote and is debatable and amendable.
  • If you wish, you may move for the Previous Question on the motion to Postpone. This requires a 2/3 vote and is neither debatable nor amendable.

When a motion has already had proper notice, no further notice is required if the motion is postponed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me: Before I study my Robert to better understand your recommendations, I need to adjust your assumptions to see if that gives me more options:

1. Our bylaws allow 25% of the owners to call a special owner meeting. (Also, the prez and the Board can call it, but they certainly will not.)

2. Our bylaws say nothing about bylaw notices, so Robert (596) allows a member to give notice at an owner meeting. I did that successfully last year to get my revision on the agenda this year.

 

Norm

 

They bylaws do not require notice? Or they have no clause at all about their amendment? These are two different cases.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..., so don't know how my revision will appear on the agenda.....

... I have to move it at New Business, ...

 

Norm

 

I confess I have lost track.  Are we loosely calling "the agenda" the order of business laid out in Post 1 (and repeated about a half-hour of my reading later, somewhere)?  And assuming that it makes no difference (by now I'm not sure, myself)?

 

 

... so don't know how my revision will appear on the agenda. It seems that it can take two forms:

1. Separate line item on the agenda, which means that a 2/3 vote is needed to remove it. (Correct?)

2. Not specified, which means that I have to move it at New Business, which means that a minority is needed to vote it down. (Correct?)

 

Norm

 

I will say, I think the substance of the discussion says that when the bylaws prescribe an agenda (Norm, or mikalac, I think you didn't ever say this as a fact -- I think it was first assumed by Mr Honemann as a fact in post 6 -- so, is it?), then amending it requires a suspension of the rules (and rules in the bylaws, at that -- only allowable if we establish confidently that the appearance of this order of business in the bylaws is clearly in the nature of rules of order; which I myslef would bet, but the mere prospect of thinking about suspending bylaws makes my corpus collosum itch, and the attempt to scratch it makes for a miserable day).  So I'm confused about what you call "how my revision [more later] will appear on the agenda.  It seems to me that the agenda, if it is mailed, or e-mailed (note hyphen, college graduates!), or telegraphed in Norm's organization still, will appear exactly as prescribed in the bylaws, and any proposed changes (like consideration of bylaws amendments, or a revision) are separate proposals, to be considered by the assembly, at the meeting.  And, as suspension of the rules, their adoption will require a 2/3 vote.

 

Or are you thinking that the secretary, or whoever sends out the meeting notices with the agenda, has the authority to set the agenda?  O what a concept.  Great Steaming Cobnuts.

 

... O heck, here to your numbered questions.  1.  If the revision is on an agenda that is already fixed, like by being prescribed in the bylaws or adopted at the outset of a meeting (but not by the secretary's deciding what to put in), then changing it is Amending Something Previously Adopted, and requires that 2/3 vote (or its variants).  But if it is merely a proposal (not likely in Norm's case, given the probable bylaws' source), then it's amending a main motion, which just takes a majority vote.

 

2.  Same as #1, above, about changing the agenda:  it's still possible, maybe easily.  But I have no clue as to what you mean about a minority at new business (or New Business, if you're Canadian).

 

One more thing: Norm, you refer to your revision, but also to 150 amendments.  You have read the paragraph on p. 589 about this, haven't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You lost me. At this point, a cavalry is supposed to appear to rescue me by presenting a precise menu of my motions and my notice that allow me to get rid of my current revision and reintroduce them again (with all 150 amendments included) on or before 7/25/15. I think that the owners might go for this because they see merit in the revision, but want to go home on 9/20/14 because the election has already taken up a lot of time. (I also will make 6 motions unrelated to the bylaws under New Business.)

 

In response to your last sentence, Robert, p. 589, has 3 paragraphs, but I don't see how any of them apply to what I'm trying to do.

 

Norm

 

You lost me. I thought you were trying to prevent adjourning so that your motion would be considered. Now you're saying you want to get rid of it. Getting rid of it is simple enough, just don't make the motion. If you want to bring it up later, follow whatever rules are in your bylaws for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am now assuming that the owners will not precipitously adjourn the meeting. I expect that the meeting will continue through the entire agenda. I think that is a safe assumption because last year the meeting went the distance. Knowing that my revision will not see the light of day, I want to preserve it by the owner's ordering a special meeting in 2015 to consider my revision. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I must get rid of my current revision in some manner if it is a line item on the agenda. (I now realize that if it is not on the agenda, then I can just ignore bringing it up at New Business.) Then I want to give notice at this 9/20 meeting that at the 2015 meeting I will move to revise the bylaws. Maybe this is not necessary, if the owners approve the special meeting, but I want overassurance because the nasty Board will use every trick in the trade to see that the owners never see the revision.

 

Norm

 

If it is a line item on the draft agenda, you can make a motion to remove it when the agenda is up for approval. But being on the agenda is not the same as having a motion. If an agenda item comes up and no one makes a motion, you just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No clause. Also, I have to introduce another consideration that maybe we must take into account with my new plan: The 9/20 meeting has not yet been called, so don't know how my revision will appear on the agenda. It seems that it can take two forms:

1. Separate line item on the agenda, which means that a 2/3 vote is needed to remove it. (Correct?)

2. Not specified, which means that I have to move it at New Business, which means that a minority is needed to vote it down. (Correct?)

 

Norm

 

If the bylaws have no clause for there amendment, then RONR says that the default comes into play: Previous notice and a 2/3 vote.  Previous notice must be then as defined on page 121. In particular:

"...  must be included in the call of the meeting at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval  will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting."  

 

You said you gave notice at the previous annual meeting, which sounds like more than a quarterly time interval.  If you want to propose a revision at this meeting, you would need to have it included in the call of the meeting. If the call hasn't been sent yet, perhaps there is time for you to get the new revision (with all your amendments folded in) in the call of the meeting.  Contact your organizations secretary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you made no comment on my actions, can I assume that you consider them in order?

 

Not necessarily, I'm afraid. I'm with JayW in the head-spinning camp (though not with him in the no-hyphen camp).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a "draft" agenda (actually, it's called the Order of Business). This is THE agenda (OOB) prescribed in the bylaws that must be presented in the call of the meeting. However, it can be modified "as far as practical" (bylaws). That tells me that my bylaws revision might appear as a line item in the meeting notice. OTOH, the Board, being unfavorably disposed toward it, might not let it appear on the agenda. (Then I can ignore bringing it up, so that's a non-problem.) Let's assume for the time being that it appears as the agenda as a line item and that we are at the meeting. Will the following motions of mine in order?

Norm

 

It is well and good that the Order of Business can be modified before being sent in the meeting notice, but that doesn't make it the official agenda, because it hasn't been adopted by the assembly. Until that is done, the official agenda is the one specified in the bylaws. If there is a motion to adopt the agenda that was included in the meeting notice, you would have the option of making a motion to amend the proposed agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the "background" that we've created for this thread, can we cut to the quick and start again with the proposed actions that I want to make at the meeting?

 

[obtaining the floor right after the election results are announced to prevent a premature adjournment]

 

"Mr. Pres., I move that the Board call a special meeting of the owners on or before July 25, 2015, for the sole purpose of revising the bylaws."

 

[Then debate is followed by voting, which could result in the motion being (1) adopted, (2) defeated, (3) amended for another date.Whatever the results, continue below.]

 

[When my bylaws revision comes up, I do nothing, so it dies (per Fish post).]

 

[obtaining the floor again]

 

"I give notice that at the next owner meeting I will move to revise the bylaws."

 

Are the above actions in order?

 

Norm

 

Starting again appears to be a very good idea.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...