Use of Agenda-To Be or Not to Be

[DanielEHayes]

In another thread this wrath was issued

If your council's policy is to follow Robert's Rules, as you say it is, then it should not be adopting any agenda at all if (as I assume is the case) it meets at least as often as once every three months. It should follow the standard order of business found in RONR, 11th ed., on pages 353-63. 

 

If it adopts an agenda listing new business as one of its headings, nothing should or need be listed under this heading. Any item of business specifically listed on an agenda is either a special order or a general order, and neither of these comes under the category of new business. A "topic for discussion" doesn't constitute "business" in any event.

 

In other words, if your council meets at least as often as quarterly and adopts an agenda listing something as a topic for discussion under new business, you are already so far outside of Robert's Rules that there is nothing that can be cited in RONR to answer your question.

So reading this and having read the pages 353-63.

The Chairman should not issue a specific agenda if the organization meets at least quarterly? They should follow the standard order of business listed on 353(if the bylaws don't lay out a specific one.) and then the chair should possibly have  an itemized list to cover the various topics(items) that fall under each heading? 

Do I have it generally correct above?

My organization's chairman always issues a very general agenda(Not quite like the one on 353, but close). I am fine with this because I always know what items of business I wish to bring to the floor with motions to discuss. Other members complain because he doesn't have a specific agenda listed and it's become a item of contention for some.(To the point that its a possible complaint for discipline against the Chairman). I personally think its more a matter of some members only show up for the quarterly meeting and then want to be spoon fed instead of paying attention during the 3 months in between and showing up prepared to do business. I think we get together and we should handle business and I am NOT a fan of the strict rigidity. Some members like timed agenda's where each item of business is alloted a specific time. I have sat in as an observer on some of these meetings and watched them waste about an hour of their 8 hour meeting on suspending the rules to reorder the agenda. NOOOO THANKS...

So detailed agenda's are sort of a no-no for organizations that meet quarterly or more frequently? Can y'all straighten me out over here before I step in the minutia again? I get tired of having to clean it out of my toes.

 

[George Mervosh]

So reading this and having read the pages 353-63.

The Chairman should not issue a specific agenda if the organization meets at least quarterly? They should follow the standard order of business listed on 353(if the bylaws don't lay out a specific one.) and then the chair should possibly have  an itemized list to cover the various topics(items) that fall under each heading? 

Do I have it generally correct above?

 

 

Yes.

 

It's important for the chair to know which officers/committees etc. will be reporting.  What, if any matters are general orders, or perhaps unfinished business, etc....but stick with the standard order of business when its applicable.

[DanielEHayes]

Yes.

 

It's important for the chair to know which officers/committees etc. will be reporting.  What, if any matters are general orders, or perhaps unfinished business, etc....but stick with the standard order of business when its applicable.

And yet our Chairman is being vilified for that...now some of it is him going off the reservation a bit, but I fault the body for that, if any of us drifit off, there are tools of Parliamentary procedure that exist to keep the meeting moving.  

I always thought those strict agendas were DUMB...because we get together once every 3 months..let's handle what we need to handle. Know what items we need to "discuss" and make some motions at the appropriate time. Now I have the page number for what I felt was the right answer so they can ignore me on that, like they do about plenty of other... guess I need to save my money up to go to court cause taking it to the general membership is unaffordable because of some goofy rules..but I digress once again...

[Shmuel Gerber]

In another thread this wrath was issued

 

If your council's policy is to follow Robert's Rules, as you say it is, then it should not be adopting any agenda at all if (as I assume is the case) it meets at least as often as once every three months. It should follow the standard order of business found in RONR, 11th ed., on pages 353-63. 

 

If it adopts an agenda listing new business as one of its headings, nothing should or need be listed under this heading. Any item of business specifically listed on an agenda is either a special order or a general order, and neither of these comes under the category of new business. A "topic for discussion" doesn't constitute "business" in any event.

 

In other words, if your council meets at least as often as quarterly and adopts an agenda listing something as a topic for discussion under new business, you are already so far outside of Robert's Rules that there is nothing that can be cited in RONR to answer your question.

So reading this and having read the pages 353-63.

The Chairman should not issue a specific agenda if the organization meets at least quarterly? They should follow the standard order of business listed on 353(if the bylaws don't lay out a specific one.) and then the chair should possibly have  an itemized list to cover the various topics(items) that fall under each heading? 

Do I have it generally correct above?

.....

So detailed agenda's are sort of a no-no for organizations that meet quarterly or more frequently? Can y'all straighten me out over here before I step in the minutia again? I get tired of having to clean it out of my toes.

 

First of all, there's more than one minutia. :-)

 

Secondly, although RONR provides an order of business for organizations that meet at least quarterly, thereby making the adoption of an agenda unnecessary, it does not stop them from adopting an agenda at a particular meeting if they want to.

 

When Mr. Honemann said that nothing should be listed under the heading of New Business on an agenda, I believe he was simply pointing out that even if such potential items would have been classified as New Business under a "precirculated agenda" provided for information or as a suggestion of what order business should be conducted in, the very act of adopting the agenda would make them be classified as General Orders (unless they are made special orders for specific times).

[Edgar Guest]

a "precirculated agenda"

 

I miss the hyphen. But, then, I miss commas too. So, maybe, it's me. 

[Gary Novosielski]

I miss the hyphen. But, then, I miss commas too. So, maybe, it's me. 

Okay fine:  prec-irculated.   Happy now? 

[DanielEHayes]

Okay fine:  prec-irculated.   Happy now? 

That wasn't nice