Adding to the Agenda by a majority vote at any time during the meeting

[MadamMember]

An organization I belong to has a rule in its constitution that allows for members of a committee to add to the agenda by a simple majority. 

"

Quote

 

E. Notice of Meetings. A regular, quarterly State Central Committee meeting shall be noticed by postmarking an agenda at least two weeks before the intended meeting. A special State Central Committee meeting shall be noticed by postmarking an agenda at least one week before the intended meeting. No business may be considered at a State Central Committee meeting unless properly noticed by inclusion in the agenda except if a majority of the members in attendance vote to add an item to the agenda.

 

 

 We've had members want to add a resolution to the agenda, but the Chair said it couldn't be because of a notice requirement. However, the Constitution quote above specifies an exception of "if a majority of the members in attendance vote to add to the agenda.

We have a parliamentarian who says that the rights of those absent are being violated if we add something to the agenda (requiring notice).

Should we be able to add something to the agenda? If so, does it require the motion to add to the agenda be prior to the adoption of the agenda? The Constitution does not limit the majority to only add to the agenda by a majority at any time in the meeting.

Please advise.

 

[Richard Brown]

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.  However my own opinion, for whatever its worth, is that the bylaw provision you quoted permits items to be added to the agenda at the meeting by the vote of a majority of the members in attendance.

Assuming you have quoted your parliamentarian correctly, i disagree with his opinion.  Your bylaws themselves contain that exception.

If uncertainty about this provision remains, a ruling of the chair on a motion to add an item to the agenda could be appealed to the assembly.  It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.  The decision of the assembly is final.

[George Mervosh]

22 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.  However my own opinion, for whatever its worth, is that the bylaw provision you quoted permits items to be added to the agenda at the meeting by the vote of a majority of the members in attendance.

Assuming you have quoted your parliamentarian correctly, i disagree with his opinion.  Your bylaws themselves contain that exception.

If uncertainty about this provision remains, a ruling of the chair on a motion to add an item to the agenda could be appealed to the assembly.  It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair.  The decision of the assembly is final.

Perhaps what they wanted to add had some additional previous notice requirement that would have been violated?

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Perhaps what they wanted to add had some additional previous notice requirement that would have been violated?

Yes, that is a definite possibility.  Good point.   A motion to amend the bylaws, for example, is probably something that requires previous notice per their bylaws.

[MadamMember]

  11 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Perhaps what they wanted to add had some additional previous notice requirement that would have been violated?

Yes, that is a definite possibility.  Good point.   A motion to amend the bylaws, for example, is probably something that requires previous notice per their bylaws.

 

• It was a motion that does not apply to the governing documents.

Edited January 24, 2019 at 08:36 AM by MadamMember
Left off the quotes to what I was replying.

[MadamMember]

Would this include if we want to add something to the agenda after its adoption? I look at it like it says those in "attendance" may add to the agenda, but it doesn't specify when in the agenda. 

The item that was wanted to be added to the agenda was a resolution about censuring the chair. The chair advised by the parliamentarian did not want this added and used Robert's Rules to not allow it on the agenda. 

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with Mr. Brown's opinion

On 1/23/2019 at 4:02 PM, Richard Brown said:

the bylaw provision you quoted permits items to be added to the agenda at the meeting by the vote of a majority of the members in attendance.

I disagree with your parliamentarian, but even if you accept that the "rights of absentees" are being violated, the bylaws of an organiztion can do that. 

Please note that the vote required is "a majority of the members in attendance". That is different from the more common "majority vote" or "more Yes's than No's". In your situation, you need to determine how many members are in attendance when the vote is taken. For example if you have 50 members in attendance at the time, then you need 26 votes in favour to add something to the agenda, no matter how many negative votes there are (even if there aren't any).

[Guest Zev]

On ‎1‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 12:45 PM, MadamMember said:

An organization I belong to has a rule in its constitution that allows for members of a committee...

Pardon me for mentioning this, but the OP said it was a committee. Are we sure that committees have agendas? Perhaps a committee would have the need for previous notice but I would suspect it does not happen very often. It sounds like a board rather than a committee.

[Atul Kapur]

The bylaws explicitly state that this committee has an agenda.

On 1/23/2019 at 3:45 PM, MadamMember said:

Committee meeting shall be noticed by postmarking an agenda

I think we've seen enough examples on this forum that innumerable organizations use the titles "board" and "committee" in non-RONR ways. I generally try to interpret from context how they're functioning. In this case, it seems clear that, yes, this Central Committee is in the nature of a board. Most of the time I've seen "State Central Committee" it's  for a political party and operates as a Board.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

10 hours ago, MadamMember said:

The item that was wanted to be added to the agenda was a resolution about censuring the chair. The chair advised by the parliamentarian did not want this added and used Robert's Rules to not allow it on the agenda. 

An blatant exercise of self-interest. The chair can only get away with what the assembled members allow. Next time, raise a point of order followed by appeal when the chair rules against you. And do not be intimidated by the parliamentarian, whose role is to advise the chair, not to issue rulings.

[Richard Brown]

7 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Pardon me for mentioning this, but the OP said it was a committee. Are we sure that committees have agendas?

It appears that this "committee" is the State Central Committee of a political organization. That would make this "committee" more in the nature of a board of directors and likely the governing body of the organization.

[Nathan Zook]

From my experience with political parties, the "central committee" is generally the assembly (usually meeting quarterly), and there is some sort of execute board elected by that committee that functions as a board of that committee.

The entire thing gets really messy because these central committees tend to be established by state law, and sometimes are mentioned in state constitutions, creating all sorts of *interesting* questions about the actual nature of these committees--which can be elected in about fifty or so different ways.

My view is that we don't have State parties in this country, so these state-established committees are long-standing violations of the Freedom of Association, in as much as the state courts treat them as "the party".  The main exception being that if they are elected by the party conventions, then the party executive authority (the convention) has chosen to submit to the statute.  But that's diving rather deeply into political-legal theory, so I'll stop.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/10/2019 at 1:10 PM, Guest Zev said:

Pardon me for mentioning this, but the OP said it was a committee. Are we sure that committees have agendas? Perhaps a committee would have the need for previous notice but I would suspect it does not happen very often. It sounds like a board rather than a committee.

In my experience, "central" or "steering" committees are actually in the nature of boards.

[Joshua Katz]

I have had both experiences. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/10/2019 at 5:08 AM, MadamMember said:

Would this include if we want to add something to the agenda after its adoption? I look at it like it says those in "attendance" may add to the agenda, but it doesn't specify when in the agenda. 

The item that was wanted to be added to the agenda was a resolution about censuring the chair. The chair advised by the parliamentarian did not want this added and [mis]used Robert's Rules to not allow it on the agenda. 

There, I fixed that for you.  :-)

For cases like this, you should try to anticipate the skulduggery and be prepared to use the Appeal process to overturn such blatant violations when they occur.  See RONR §24.

[Richard Brown]

On 2/10/2019 at 12:10 PM, Guest Zev said:

Pardon me for mentioning this, but the OP said it was a committee. Are we sure that committees have agendas? Perhaps a committee would have the need for previous notice but I would suspect it does not happen very often. It sounds like a board rather than a committee

As others have pointed out, including the original poster, it seems clear that this is the state central committee of a political organization and is almost certainly in the nature of a board of directors, rather than a "committee" in the usual sense of the word.