Lumpy52403 Posted March 31, 2016 at 02:58 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 02:58 PM Suppose an agenda is adopted at a meeting and includes a time at which the meeting is to adjourn. Is a motion to adjourn prior to that time (either as a privileged motion or as an incidental main motion when no other motion is pending) in order? And if it is in order, would it fall into the category of amending something previously adopted, thus requiring a 2/3 vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted March 31, 2016 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 03:57 PM It is done by a main motion adopted by majority vote (see RONR 11th ed., p. 241, ll. 4-6). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:18 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:18 PM 2 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: It is done by a main motion adopted by majority vote (see RONR 11th ed., p. 241, ll. 4-6). The sentence you cited refers to "such a meeting", which apparently is referring back to "a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting". Do you attach any significance to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:31 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:31 PM 8 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: The sentence you cited refers to "such a meeting", which apparently is referring back to "a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting". Do you attach any significance to this? I thought "such a meeting" also includes one in which there is "an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting the time". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 06:35 PM 5 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said: I thought "such a meeting" also includes one in which there is "an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting the time". I'm sure it does, but what about the part of that sentence that I quoted? (By the way, I think you're right that a majority vote is all that is required, but even so .....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 31, 2016 at 07:05 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 07:05 PM 26 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: (By the way, I think you're right that a majority vote is all that is required, but even so .....) Me too, since making a majority stay in session longer than it wants to is ridiculous, but while you're waiting for Mr. Huynh to get back to you, what about what is said on p. 234, ll. 23-25? If it's to be treated "just as any other main motion", why wouldn't it really take a 2/3 vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 31, 2016 at 07:21 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 07:21 PM 8 minutes ago, George Mervosh said: Me too, since making a majority stay in session longer than it wants to is ridiculous, but while you're waiting for Mr. Huynh to get back to you, what about what is said on p. 234, ll. 23-25? If it's to be treated "just as any other main motion", why wouldn't it really take a 2/3 vote? It is to be treated just as any other main motion except that it will only take a majority vote to adopt it if it proposes an adjournment that is earlier than the time set. To extend the time previously set for adjournment will require a two-thirds vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 31, 2016 at 07:34 PM Report Share Posted March 31, 2016 at 07:34 PM 13 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: It is to be treated just as any other main motion except that it will only take a majority vote to adopt it if it proposes an adjournment that is earlier than the time set. To extend the time previously set for adjournment will require a two-thirds vote. Ok, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted April 1, 2016 at 12:52 PM Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 at 12:52 PM 18 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: The sentence you cited refers to "such a meeting", which apparently is referring back to "a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting". Do you attach any significance to this? These are situations where having a set time for adjourning is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 1, 2016 at 01:00 PM Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 at 01:00 PM It might be well to note that I have been referring here to a motion to close the meeting immediately which is made when a time for adjourning is already established (in this instance by an adopted agenda). As far as I can determine, such a motion, if made when no business is pending, will be in order and can be adopted by majority vote even although a later time for adjournment has been already been established. I am not referring to any motion which is not an unqualified motion to adjourn the meeting immediately, such as, for example, a motion made at 3:00 pm to adjourn at 4:00 pm when the time for adjournment has already been set for 5:00 pm (which I think would simply be out of order), or a motion to amend the adopted agenda by striking out "5:00 pm" and inserting "4:00 pm", which will clearly require a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent for its adoption. I do not think that this should be treated as a case of taking up business out of its proper order (pp. 363-364), since I do not regard adjournment as an "item of business." It is probably too simplistic to point to number 3 on tinted pages 6-7 as authority, which tells us that a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set requires only a majority vote for its adoption, but I guess it's at least worth mentioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumpy52403 Posted April 1, 2016 at 01:39 PM Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2016 at 01:39 PM 35 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: It is probably too simplistic to point to number 3 on tinted pages 6-7 as authority, which tells us that a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set requires only a majority vote for its adoption, but I guess it's at least worth mentioning. Yes, it's worth mentioning, because you just answered my original question in one sentence. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.