Is New Business Automatic?

[George Mervosh]

Society A has meetings where the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are more than a quarterly time interval apart.  It has no special order of business in any of their rules, so they adopt an agenda at each meeting.

 

If the adopted agenda does not include the heading New Business, is it automatically assumed that members can still raise items of new business after the other classes of business have been gone through, or must the heading New Business appear for that to happen?

[Edgar Guest]

Since RONR says (on p.374) that "an agenda should include provision for unfinished business" (emphasis mine), it seems reasonable to conclude that it might not. And, further, to infer that it also might not include provision for new business. And if provision for unfinished business must be included on the agenda in order for unfinished business to be considered (else why would RONR say it should be?), wouldn't the same apply to new business?

 

Conversely, if the time available for a particular meeting was limited to the point where the assembly chooses not to consider (unspecified) new business, how, other than leaving it off the agenda, would that be accomplished?

[Richard Brown]

Good questions.  I've been wondering about the same thing.

[Josh Martin]

Society A has meetings where the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are more than a quarterly time interval apart. It has no special order of business in any of their rules, so they adopt an agenda at each meeting.

If the adopted agenda does not include the heading New Business, is it automatically assumed that members can still raise items of new business after the other classes of business have been gone through, or must the heading New Business appear for that to happen?

In my view, the purpose of an agenda as it is defined in RONR is not to limit what business may be considered at a particular meeting, but to ensure that the most important business is completed first. Additional business can be completed as time allows. If everything on the agenda has been completed, I see no reason why a member cannot introduce items of New Business, even if that heading is not specifically included on the agenda. If the assembly wishes, it is always free to adjourn the meeting, by majority vote.

Since RONR says (on p.374) that "an agenda should include provision for unfinished business" (emphasis mine), it seems reasonable to conclude that it might not. And, further, to infer that it also might not include provision for new business. And if provision for unfinished business must be included on the agenda in order for unfinished business to be considered (else why would RONR say it should be?), wouldn't the same apply to new business?

Conversely, if the time available for a particular meeting was limited to the point where the assembly chooses not to consider (unspecified) new business, how, other than leaving it off the agenda, would that be accomplished?

I think the concern regarding Unfinished Business is not so much that it could not be considered if it were not included, but to ensure that there is time to consider such business. If an agenda did not include Unfinished Business, it would seem to me (as above), that such business could be considered after all business on the agenda is completed - but for assemblies which need an agenda, this will generally mean in practice that there is no time to consider Unfinished Business.

If the assembly wishes to prohibit the introduction of items of business not included on the agenda, it may do so for a particular meeting by adopting a rule of order for the meeting, or on a permanent basis by adopting a special rule of order.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Society A has meetings where the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are more than a quarterly time interval apart. 

It has no special order of business in any of their rules, so they adopt an agenda at each meeting.

 

If the adopted agenda does not include the heading New Business,

is it automatically assumed that members can still raise items of new business after the other classes of business have been gone through, or must the heading New Business appear for that to happen?

Review.

 

* They are meeting semi-annually or thereabouts.

 

* They really, truly adopt their agenda. -- It isn't a memorandum (RONR terminology).

 

***

 

Under RONR's default method, the chair reaches each class of business, and prompts the members for appropriate business.

For example:

"Is the treasurer ready to report?"

"Is there any committee ready to report?

"Is there any new business?"

 

But when an agenda is adopted, the chair never asks.

The chair can only enterain that which has been adopted.

Once you adopt an agenda, then no new items may be entertained, except by:

(a.) suspending the rules.

(b.) amending the agenda. (see Amend Something Previously Adopted.)

 

So, in your scenario,

all "new business" must be offered as amendments to the agenda,

since the agenda is to be adopted;

and thus lock-out all other business not so adopted at the top of the meeting.

[J. J.]

I think that the assembly can establish an agenda without new business. 

[Dan Honemann]

In my view, the purpose of an agenda as it is defined in RONR is not to limit what business may be considered at a particular meeting, but to ensure that the most important business is completed first. Additional business can be completed as time allows. If everything on the agenda has been completed, I see no reason why a member cannot introduce items of New Business, even if that heading is not specifically included on the agenda. If the assembly wishes, it is always free to adjourn the meeting, by majority vote.

 

I agree.

 

I think the concern regarding Unfinished Business is not so much that it could not be considered if it were not included, but to ensure that there is time to consider such business. If an agenda did not include Unfinished Business, it would seem to me (as above), that such business could be considered after all business on the agenda is completed - but for assemblies which need an agenda, this will generally mean in practice that there is no time to consider Unfinished Business.

 

George sez:

 

"Society A has meetings where the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are more than a quarterly time interval apart.  It has no special order of business in any of their rules, so they adopt an agenda at each meeting."

 

Under these circumstances, I don't think that there can be any unfinished business.

[Dan Honemann]

I think that the assembly can establish an agenda without new business. 

 

One way to do it is to set a fixed time for adjournment.

[George Mervosh]

I've always thought this applied regardless of the presence of the heading New Business -  "So long as members are reasonably prompt in claiming the floor, the chair cannot prevent the making of legitimate motions or deprive members of the right to introduce legitimate business, by hurrying through the proceedings." p. 360.  As noted, the assembly can adjourn anytime a majority wish to do so.

[Edgar Guest]

George sez:

 

"Society A has meetings where the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are more than a quarterly time interval apart.  It has no special order of business in any of their rules, so they adopt an agenda at each meeting."

 

Under these circumstances, I don't think that there can be any unfinished business.

 

Is that because of the length of time between meetings?

 

What if the meetings were monthly? Would unfinished business and new business have the same status? Could either be considered without being included on the agenda?

[Sean Hunt]

I've been in a situation where this came up, and my interpretation was that if the agenda includes "Adjournment" at the end, then it prevents additional business from being brought up, because this constitutes a general order for adjournment after other business (equivalently, an order to set a time for adjournment of "after the other business is disposed of"), and so the assembly would have to override or vary that order in order to consider alternate business.

 

Otherwise, the default is to have the assembly sitting around with nothing to do. The chair has no authority to adjourn a meeting on his own; the authority to do so must come from some order or rule of the assembly (or, for an assembly without a parliamentary authority, from the general parliamentary law, but we aren't considering that case here). RONR, when adopted as parliamentary authority, provides the authority to adjourn in two limited circumstances: during an emergency, or when the assembly has exhausted all business set for the meeting by order or by rule, the adjournment would not dissolve the assembly, the chair has called for new business immediately prior, and no member has sought the floor in response. If any of these requirements is not met, then the chair has no authority to adjourn the meeting.

 

(Similarly, I'm of the opinion that an agenda item of "Adjournment", if it's clearly placed after the other general orders, even without a specific time attached, prevents the use of the privileged motion to adjourn)

[Dan Honemann]

Is that because of the length of time between meetings?

 

Yes

 

What if the meetings were monthly? Would unfinished business and new business have the same status? Could either be considered without being included on the agenda?

 

If meetings are monthly, unfinished business and new business certainly do not have the same status.

 

 The answer to your second question cannot be answered without knowing exactly what is adopted as the agenda, although, generally speaking, the answer is that both will most likely be able to be considered (but I should have asked you to start your own thread if you want to veer off in other directions like this).