Point of Discussion Not on Agenda

[user]

Let's say the committee adopts the agenda. Near the end of the meeting, a member brings up a controversial item for discussion that is not on the agenda. Is this prohibited since the item is not on the agenda? That is of course assuming there is no 2/3rds vote to amend the agenda.

Let's say there's an item on the agenda that provides time for "Miscellaneous" and the controversial item of discussion was brought up then. Is that allowed? I feel that is somewhat unacceptable since controversial of discussion should be placed on the agenda ahead of time to allow people time to prepare for debate. What do the official rules say though?

If it is acceptable to bring it up in a "Miscellaneous" section of the agenda, what should one do? Debate the approval of the agenda saying "Miscellaneous" sections should not be placed on agendas?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The committee could discuss whatever it is responsible for without an agenda. Why is one being adopted?

[jstackpo]

Since, as described on page 371, the "agenda" is simply a list of business items which, when the agenda is adopted, are placed in the "General Orders" portion of a business meeting, the adoption of an agenda places NO restrictions on items of business not on the list that can and properly should be introduced in the "New Business" portion of the order of business.  It sounds like User's "Miscellaneous" is just an (informal) name for "New Business".   The standard order of business is already established by the inclusion of RONR in the bylaws -- page 353.

A reason for adopting an agenda would be to give those listed items priority in the meeting over "surprise" New Business items, especially controversial ones.

[Joshua Katz]

6 hours ago, user said:

Let's say there's an item on the agenda that provides time for "Miscellaneous" and the controversial item of discussion was brought up then. Is that allowed? I feel that is somewhat unacceptable since controversial of discussion should be placed on the agenda ahead of time to allow people time to prepare for debate. What do the official rules say though?

 

The official rules, meaning RONR and not any other rules to which your organization may be subject, say nothing preventing controversial items from being brought up at meetings, and specifically allow members to make motions. They do, though, change the vote threshold for certain motions, mostly those which bring something again before the assembly, when notice is given, to promote stability. 

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

3 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Since, as described on page 371, the "agenda" is simply a list of business items which, when the agenda is adopted, are placed in the "General Orders" portion of a business meeting, the adoption of an agenda places NO restrictions on items of business not on the list that can and properly should be introduced in the "New Business" portion of the order of business.  It sounds like User's "Miscellaneous" is just an (informal) name for "New Business".   The standard order of business is already established by the inclusion of RONR in the bylaws -- page 353.

Why then does RONR imply that an agenda overrides the standard order of business? (11th ed., p. 372, ll. 5–8, 11–13, 18–22)

[George Mervosh]

6 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

Why then does RONR imply that an agenda overrides the standard order of business? (11th ed., p. 372, ll. 5–8, 11–13, 18–22)

It could override the standard order of business, if adopted by a 2/3 vote.

"At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required (see also p. 264, ll. 14–28). "  RONR (p. 372)

However it doesn't matter here as  committees are not bound by the standard order of business.

[Guest Zev]

If "User" thinks he/she needs more time for reflection, why not move to postpone the "controversial" item to the next meeting and in the meantime prepare oneself?

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

If "User" thinks he/she needs more time for reflection, why not move to postpone the "controversial" item to the next meeting and in the meantime prepare oneself?

The OP is certainly free to do so. Such a motion would be debatable and would require a majority vote for adoption.

[user]

On 1/8/2019 at 1:58 AM, Hieu H. Huynh said:

The committee could discuss whatever it is responsible for without an agenda. Why is one being adopted?

If it makes a difference, this is the executive committee and I suppose we are responsible for just about anything in the organization. We adopt an agenda so we have an organized list of items to discuss. Also, as it says in RONR “It is customary to adopt an agenda or program for each session in organizations that do not hold frequent regular meetings” which I suppose would also be a reason.

[user]

On 1/8/2019 at 6:42 AM, jstackpo said:

Since, as described on page 371, the "agenda" is simply a list of business items which, when the agenda is adopted, are placed in the "General Orders" portion of a business meeting, the adoption of an agenda places NO restrictions on items of business not on the list that can and properly should be introduced in the "New Business" portion of the order of business.  It sounds like User's "Miscellaneous" is just an (informal) name for "New Business".   The standard order of business is already established by the inclusion of RONR in the bylaws -- page 353.

 A reason for adopting an agenda would be to give those listed items priority in the meeting over "surprise" New Business items, especially controversial ones.

Before the meeting, the president asks executive committee members if they have any items they want placed on the agenda. They are placed on the agenda, and then we discuss them at the meeting. I believe it's like it says on page 371 “By a single vote, a series of special orders or general orders—or a mixture of both—can be made; such a series is called an agenda.” It's a mixture of special orders or general orders I suppose. The items placed on the agenda are usually new items of business.

So based on this, if we adopted the agenda and it didn't include a miscellaneous or new business section, could anyone still bring up any new business item they wanted? Or would they need a 2/3rds vote to modify the agenda since it was already adopted?

[user]

On 1/8/2019 at 6:30 PM, Guest Zev said:

If "User" thinks he/she needs more time for reflection, why not move to postpone the "controversial" item to the next meeting and in the meantime prepare oneself?

 

On 1/8/2019 at 7:42 PM, Josh Martin said:

The OP is certainly free to do so. Such a motion would be debatable and would require a majority vote for adoption.

Yes, exactly this. One could move to postpone it, but then it would be debatable and require a majority vote.

[user]

On 1/8/2019 at 10:22 AM, George Mervosh said:

It could override the standard order of business, if adopted by a 2/3 vote.

"At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required (see also p. 264, ll. 14–28). "  RONR (p. 372)

However it doesn't matter here as  committees are not bound by the standard order of business.

I think it's more like the text right above that where it says:

“In cases in which an agenda is adopted, usually this is done at the outset of a session and the agenda is intended to cover the entire session. At a session having no prescribed or adopted order of business, such an agenda is followed as a guide by the chair pending its formal adoption and can be adopted by majority vote, even if it contains special orders; it is then the order of business for that session.”

Before the meeting, the president asks executive committee members if they have any items they want placed on the agenda. They are placed on the agenda, and then we discuss them at the meeting. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel we start off at a session that has no prescribed or adopted order of business, and then we adopt it at the beginning of the meeting and then it becomes the order of business for that session.

But if we adopt the agenda and it didn't include a miscellaneous or new business section, could anyone still bring up any new business item they wanted? Or would they need a 2/3rds vote to modify the agenda since it was already adopted?

[jstackpo]

Here's a link to a short essay that may help to clear up your questions.

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, user said:

If it makes a difference, this is the executive committee and I suppose we are responsible for just about anything in the organization. We adopt an agenda so we have an organized list of items to discuss. Also, as it says in RONR “It is customary to adopt an agenda or program for each session in organizations that do not hold frequent regular meetings” which I suppose would also be a reason.

No, it does not make a difference.

12 hours ago, user said:

So based on this, if we adopted the agenda and it didn't include a miscellaneous or new business section, could anyone still bring up any new business item they wanted?

Yes. The purpose of an agenda in RONR is to ensure that the most important items are considered first, not to limit the items which may be considered.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the answers above but would point out that your organization, if it so desires, may adopt a special rule of order (or a bylaws provision) that only items on the agenda may be taken up at a meeting.  An alternative provision would be that a super-majority vote of some kind,  such as a two thirds vote, is necessary in order to take up an item not on the agenda.   I would be very hesitant to adopt a rule that an item must be on the agenda in order to be taken up, even though I suppose the agenda could be amended at the meeting to add the desired item.  Such strict rules wind up backfiring and leading to unintended consequences all too often.

[Gary Novosielski]

19 hours ago, user said:

If it makes a difference, this is the executive committee and I suppose we are responsible for just about anything in the organization. We adopt an agenda so we have an organized list of items to discuss. Also, as it says in RONR “It is customary to adopt an agenda or program for each session in organizations that do not hold frequent regular meetings” which I suppose would also be a reason.

In many organizations, an "executive committee", sometimes called a "steering committee" is actually in the nature of a board, and would not follow the rules that apply to standing and special committees.  Many of the comments in this thread that refer to committees would therefore not apply.

[user]

17 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Here's a link to a short essay that may help to clear up your questions.

That is good info. Thanks.

7 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, it does not make a difference.

Yes. The purpose of an agenda in RONR is to ensure that the most important items are considered first, not to limit the items which may be considered.

Ok. Got it. Thanks.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the answers above but would point out that your organization, if it so desires, may adopt a special rule of order (or a bylaws provision) that only items on the agenda may be taken up at a meeting.  An alternative provision would be that a super-majority vote of some kind,  such as a two thirds vote, is necessary in order to take up an item not on the agenda.   I would be very hesitant to adopt a rule that an item must be on the agenda in order to be taken up, even though I suppose the agenda could be amended at the meeting to add the desired item.  Such strict rules wind up backfiring and leading to unintended consequences all too often.

Thanks. I don't think I would try to do that.

49 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In many organizations, an "executive committee", sometimes called a "steering committee" is actually in the nature of a board, and would not follow the rules that apply to standing and special committees.  Many of the comments in this thread that refer to committees would therefore not apply.

Thanks. If that's the case, do you know how it would affect the answer to my original question?

[Gary Novosielski]

4 minutes ago, user said:

Thanks. If that's the case, do you know how it would affect the answer to my original question?

Not much.  The answer is that, if the rules in RONR apply, the agenda does not prohibit members from making motions under New Business, or Miscellaneous, or simply after all agenda items are disposed of and before adjournment.   As Mr. Martin pointed out, the purpose of an agenda is simply to ensure that important items are covered first. 

In fact, it might well be said about the purpose of RONR in general that it is intended to facilitate members' ability to participate in decision-making in an efficient manner, not to provide mechanisms whereby their participation can be thwarted.  Since you refer several times to "controversial" matters, I would add that, in my experience, controversial topics that are systematically suppressed almost never go away, and typically become ever more controversial, not less so.

[user]

1 minute ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Not much.  The answer is that, if the rules in RONR apply, the agenda does not prohibit members from making motions under New Business, or Miscellaneous, or simply after all agenda items are disposed of and before adjournment.   As Mr. Martin pointed out, the purpose of an agenda is simply to ensure that important items are covered first. 

In fact, it might well be said about the purpose of RONR in general that it is intended to facilitate members' ability to participate in decision-making in an efficient manner, not to provide mechanisms whereby their participation can be thwarted.  Since you refer several times to "controversial" matters, I would add that, in my experience, controversial topics that are systematically suppressed almost never go away, and typically become ever more controversial, not less so.

Got it. Thanks. If I have to debate something, I just like to be prepared in advance rather than not being given any time to consider the issue. Though I suppose I could just move to postpone discussion of the item.

[Gary Novosielski]

10 minutes ago, user said:

Got it. Thanks. If I have to debate something, I just like to be prepared in advance rather than not being given any time to consider the issue. Though I suppose I could just move to postpone discussion of the item.

Absolutely.  If you don't believe that there is enough time to allow an informed decision, you can say as much in debate, and move to postpone the question or to refer the question to a committee charged with researching relevant information and making a recommendation.

[Shmuel Gerber]

15 hours ago, user said:

Got it. Thanks. If I have to debate something, I just like to be prepared in advance rather than not being given any time to consider the issue. Though I suppose I could just move to postpone discussion of the item.

Or you could move to adjourn the meeting.