Agenda vs. Standard Order of Business

[Tom Coronite]

Following another topic where this came up but didn't want to sidetrack that thread.

An ordinary society likely should use the standard order of business, unless they meet infrequently, more than a quarterly interval between meetings. And an agenda is a series of orders (special or general) set in a particular sequence, perhaps even with times assigned for each.

Which factor is more important in determining whether an agenda should be used, the frequency of the meetings or the complexity/quantity of business?

For example, our church has two meetings scheduled each year: one in February to elect officers and committees and one in October to present a budget. Both may contain other items at times but usually not much. Even though our meetings are more than a quarterly interval apart, I think an agenda is not warranted due to the simplicity of what's addressed.

[Gary c Tesser]

The factor that should determine whether to use an agenda instead of the standard order of business, is whether it would be better to use an agenda.  Your last sentence says it.  See RONR, 11th Ed. (Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.), p. 372, lines 6 - 9:  you use an agenda when the S-o-B won't do; but clearly, it's fine, and actually preferable, for your semi-annual meetings, unless there's more you haven't mentioned, which I think unlikely, because if there were any, you woulda.

 

(Edit: What was clear at 7 AM is not so clear now, at least as written: "you use an agenda when the S-o-B won't do; but clearly, it's fine, and actually preferable, for your semi-annual meetings," was pitifully ambiguous.

  This should be clearer:  "you use an agenda when the S-o-B won't do; but clearly, it's the standard order of business is fine, and actually preferable, for your semi-annual meetings ..."  I think 1stChurch is getting at this in Post 6.)

[Josh Martin]

Following another topic where this came up but didn't want to sidetrack that thread.

An ordinary society likely should use the standard order of business, unless they meet infrequently, more than a quarterly interval between meetings. And an agenda is a series of orders (special or general) set in a particular sequence, perhaps even with times assigned for each.

Which factor is more important in determining whether an agenda should be used, the frequency of the meetings or the complexity/quantity of business?

For example, our church has two meetings scheduled each year: one in February to elect officers and committees and one in October to present a budget. Both may contain other items at times but usually not much. Even though our meetings are more than a quarterly interval apart, I think an agenda is not warranted due to the simplicity of what's addressed.

RONR provides that it is customary to adopt an agenda if the assembly meets infrequently, if the session lasts for several days, or if, for any reason, neither the standard order of business nor a special order of business adopted by the society is applicable (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 372).

So far as I can tell, there is nothing about holding infrequent meetings, in and of itself, which makes the adoption of an agenda desirable. Rather, the presumption is that the nature of the business in such a meeting will make the adoption of an agenda desirable.

On the other hand, the standard order of business is the default order of business "unless the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 353). So if such an assembly wishes to use the standard order of business, it would need to adopt a rule providing as much.

EDIT: Changed "inapplicable" to "applicable," thanks to Mr. Tesser.

[Tom Coronite]

So if such an assembly wishes to use the standard order of business, it would need to adopt a rule providing as much. 

 

 

Hmmm...  That's exactly what I'm getting at, trying to discern which issue drives the agenda-vs-standard order question.  Your point is well taken, but I notice the referenced text on p 353 does not say "...in which case adopting an agenda is the default procedure..." or some such wording.  Could it be that the "unless" simply means the standard order of business is not the default, but neither is an agenda the default, so perhaps adopting a rule is not needed?

[Dan Honemann]

I think you will find informative what is said on page 25, line 24, to page 26, line 18.

[Tom Coronite]

Thank you, Daniel.  I have read this several times now, typed & deleted many questions.  The more I read this section, and go back and read p 353, I believe they indicate more freedom to choose (agenda vs Standard order) than an obligation, when meetings are more than a quarterly interval.  Might I be on the right track?

[Dan Honemann]

Thank you, Daniel.  I have read this several times now, typed & deleted many questions.  The more I read this section, and go back and read p 353, I believe they indicate more freedom to choose (agenda vs Standard order) than an obligation, when meetings are more than a quarterly interval.  Might I be on the right track?

 

Well, there is certainly nothing in RONR that says that an organization must adopt an agenda for its meetings if it has no prescribed order of business.

[Gary c Tesser]

(Readers, please note that I have fixed a grievous error in Post 2.)

 

...or if, for any reason, neither the standard order of business nor a special order of business adopted by the society is ... inapplicable (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 372)....

 

I've looked at this four or five times:  is it possible that the good Mr Martin lost track of his negations -- that "inapplicable" is inapplicable?

 

... On the other hand, the standard order of business is the default order of business "unless the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 353). So if such an assembly wishes to use the standard order of business, it would need to adopt a rule providing as much.

 

O Josh.  Our first quarrel.

 

Thank you, Daniel.  I have read this several times now, typed & deleted many questions....

 

Boy, am I a life member of that club!

 

...  The more I read this section, and go back and read p 353, I believe they indicate more freedom to choose (agenda vs Standard order) than an obligation, when meetings are more than a quarterly interval.  Might I be on the right track?

 

O, I think you are.  (I don't think p. 25 - 26 changes anything.  Though of course it's informative.  But of course so is p. xxx, which I'm personally fond of because it mentions Thucydides, who is one of my favorite dull writers.  -- Unless maybe your church has not adopted RONR as its PA, which I think unlikely, because if it hadn't, you woulda.)  Though it puts me in regretful (and, most often, regretting) and respectful opposition to an opinion of Josh Martin's.  So one of us is goin' out of here looking for the parliamentary ailerons store, because one of us is gettin' his ailerons shot off.  To continue the Western showdown -slash- fighter plane dogfight metaphor, I smell blood in the water.

 

(Edit:  housecleanin', pardner)

[Tom Coronite]

Yes, RONR is our adopted parliamentary authority.

 

Yes, Josh's assertion that a rule would need to be adopted in the situation he describes is giving me great pause.

[Richard Brown]

Having studied the question and the language in RONR on pages 25-26 cited by Mr. Honemann, the language on page 353 first cited by Mr. Martin, and the language on page 372 cited by Mr. Martin and others, and applying what I hope is a little common sense, I see nothing that requires an assembly that meets less often than quarterly to have to adopt either an agenda or a special rule of order specifying an order of business.  

 

I think the standard order of business can be followed by this organization without an agenda and without it having to adopt a special rule addressing the order of business.  I think Mr. Tesser got it right when he said in post # 2 that, in essence, they can use the standard order of business unless it just doesn't suit their needs.  I beleive 1st Church was saying essentially the same thing.

 

Edited to add:  Some parts of the language on this subject on pages 25-26, 353 and 372 do seem just a tiny bit contradictory....something the authorship team might keep in mind for the next edition.

[Josh Martin]

I've looked at this four or five times: is it possible that the good Mr Martin lost track of his negations -- that "inapplicable" is inapplicable?

Yes, thank you. It should say "applicable" rather than "inapplicable."

Yes, Josh's assertion that a rule would need to be adopted in the situation he describes is giving me great pause.

Well, perhaps my earlier statement was too narrow. There is no default order of business in an assembly which meets less frequently than quarterly. If an assembly wishes to use the standard order of business, therefore, the assembly must take some sort of action in order to do so. The assembly could adopt a motion adopting the standard order of business for a particular meeting or adopt a special rule of order providing that the standard order of business shall be used for all meetings. A custom would also be sufficient.

I think the standard order of business can be followed by this organization without an agenda and without it having to adopt a special rule addressing the order of business.  I think Mr. Tesser got it right when he said in post # 2 that, in essence, they can use the standard order of business unless it just doesn't suit their needs.  I beleive 1st Church was saying essentially the same thing.

In an assembly which meets less frequently than quarterly, there is no default order of business. Such an assembly is certainly free to use the standard order of business, or a special order of business, or an agenda, or no order of business at all.

I have no disagreement with the argument that such an assembly is free to use the standard order of business in RONR, but unless there is an existing rule or custom on the subject, it seems to me that the assembly must take some action in order to do this. Otherwise, how do you know that is what the assembly wants to do?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Edited to add:  Some parts of the language on this subject on pages 25-26, 353 and 372 do seem just a tiny bit contradictory....something the authorship team might keep in mind for the next edition.

 

If you can cite particular language that does seem just a tiny bit contradictory, please do so.

 

I think the standard order of business can be followed by this organization without an agenda and without it having to adopt a special rule addressing the order of business.

 

It depends what you mean by "the standard order of business can be followed." An assembly of an ordinary society that meets less often than quarterly, that does not have its own special order of business, and that has not adopted an agenda certainly can, and in most cases probably should and probably will, transact its business in the order specified by the standard order of business, with respect to those categories that are applicable. The question is simply whether under such circumstances that particular order is actually binding on the assembly so that varying from it -- by the adoption of an agenda or in some other way -- will require a two-thirds vote (or laying items on the table by majority vote after they are brought up, etc.; cf. pp. 363-364).

[Tom Coronite]

Those last 2 posts (11 & 12) are very helpful for my own understanding.  Thank you.