Motion created by agenda instead of from the floor

[SAILORMAN]

Our chair has called for a special meeting and included on the agenda for that meeting:

2. Action Item: Vote for X and if passed do X

I have replaced the item being voted on with X as I would like a general answer to the question.

I my opinion the Chair is putting forth a motion to do something without a second from the floor.

Is my interpretation correct? If so can a motion be made in the form of an agenda item by the chair without a second or other approval of the Board?

Thank you, 

 

[Guest Zev]

Motions do not require a second before being introduced, unless some rule requires it. If the agenda item is placed there by order of the board or as a recommendation from a committee then it needs no second once it is introduced, except if the committee is a committee of one person. If this is the chairman's personal opinion then it would need a second from the floor but only once it is moved.

[SAILORMAN]

The subject was never discussed with the board or any committee prior to putting it on the agenda. It is the chair's own attempt to reintroduce an issue which he was against ( the chair does not act impartially) that the board previously voted for.

How do I get it off the agenda?  I am pretty new to this and am studying but I don't think many if any of the other board members are versed in Robert's Rules and they are our rules according to the By-Laws.

Thank you,

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, DanO' said:

The subject was never discussed with the board or any committee prior to putting it on the agenda.

Putting a proposal on an agenda is just a method of assigning it a particular place in the order of business. If the organization had no agenda it would follow the standard order of business and if this were a new subject it would be introduced under New Business. Having an agenda instead just means that the group wishes to have a tighter control over what subjects it expects to consider. After all, time is money.

1 hour ago, DanO' said:

It is the chair's own attempt to reintroduce an issue which he was against ... that the board previously voted for.

If this item is a motion to rescind or amend the previous vote, then putting it on an agenda beforehand is a form of previous notice and the rescinding or amending vote would only be a majority vote rather than a 2/3 vote if introduced without notice. From his point of view it is a plus if he is trying to repeal it.

1 hour ago, DanO' said:

( the chair does not act impartially)

Please understand that in certain types of groups the chairman is actually expected to be actively engaged in the discussion and approval of the subjects at hand. Without knowing the specifics about what kind of group this is and exactly what the chairman is doing it is difficult to say something more helpful.

1 hour ago, DanO' said:

How do I get it off the agenda?

Usually agendas are created at the beginning of a meeting. The subjects and the order in which they will be considered are determined by vote. All the members present have a chance to include their favorite subjects at the time the agenda is created. The only way to include an item on the agenda is by argumentation in favor of the subject and convincing the other members that it worth their time and effort to discuss it. The only way to keep an item off an agenda is to argue against it and secure enough friends that would agree it should not be considered at this time. It should be clear that an agenda is not created by way of fiat or decree. The members assembled are the ones that make that determination. However, once the agenda has been set it is still possible to delete the item by way of the introduction of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted and change the agenda by way of eliminating that particular line item before it is introduced. If that opportunity never presents itself then once the item is introduced those opposed are left with their powers of persuasion. After all, that is what a deliberative assembly is all about. You should not worry too much since at the next meeting you can try to get on the agenda a motion that would either repeal or modify what was done previously. Conditions change and people's opinions change, right?

2 hours ago, DanO' said:

I am pretty new to this and am studying but I don't think many if any of the other board members are versed in Robert's Rules and they are our rules according to the By-Laws.

 It is not easy to absorb 235,000 words in short order. However, you could do yourself and the other members a big favor by purchasing for yourself and them the shorter version of this book which is entitled Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, 5"x7" book of a mere 198 pages that is more easily digested. I hope this helps you in some way. Good luck.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

If this item is a motion to rescind or amend the previous vote, then putting it on an agenda beforehand is a form of previous notice and the rescinding or amending vote would only be a majority vote rather than a 2/3 vote if introduced without notice. From his point of view it is a plus if he is trying to repeal it.

Putting something on the agenda is not the same thing as giving previous notice of a motion and has no effect on the vote requirement to adopt a motion. The only possible exception would be if the agenda is included with and considered a part of the notice or call of the meeting. Merely having it on the agenda that is presented for approval at the start of the meeting does not constitute "giving notice". 

[jstackpo]

49 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Merely having it on the agenda that is presented for approval at the start of the meeting does not constitute "giving notice". 

HA!!  An agenda is "adopted" (p. 372) not "approved".

[Richard Brown]

4 hours ago, jstackpo said:

HA!!  An agenda is "adopted" (p. 372) not "approved".

Yes, but the minutes are "approved", not "adopted"!

Pages 354-355 and 473-475.

Edited February 2, 2019 at 06:02 PM by Richard Brown
Added page reference

[Roman.76]

So the student council I am a member of uses the order of business listed in RRNR on p. 353.  The agendas are also sent out with the notice of a meeting (at least 72 hrs. prior to the start of the meeting) by the president(chair) of the council.  Would it be "acceptable" or "proper" for the president to add items under New Business?  I understood that nothing should be listed under New Business because this is a time for members to bring up their own proposals/motions.

[Guest Zev]

28 minutes ago, Roman.76 said:

So the student council I am a member of uses the order of business listed in RRNR on p. 353.

OK, this is good.

28 minutes ago, Roman.76 said:

The agendas are also sent out with the notice of a meeting (at least 72 hrs. prior to the start of the meeting) by the president(chair) of the council. 

Ah, this is also good. I assumed this was the case, but only by accident.

31 minutes ago, Roman.76 said:

I understood that nothing should be listed under New Business because this is a time for members to bring up their own proposals/motions.

True for motions that did not have the requirement for previous notice. But if a subject is a new one and it is known to come up at that time then there is no other place for it to be listed.

35 minutes ago, Roman.76 said:

Would it be "acceptable" or "proper" for the president to add items under New Business? 

For the reason I just stated it is entirely proper to list all known items under their headings and give the assembly a "heads up" before the meeting. I see nothing unusual in any of this.

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, Roman.76 said:

Would it be "acceptable" or "proper" for the president to add items under New Business? 

That is more or less OK, but it would be MUCH better (from the point of view of the impartiality of the president/chair) if the president scurried around, before the meeting, and found some member willing to make the motion for the item as a piece of new business.  Nothing wrong with that -- it's called "leadership".

[SAILORMAN]

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Putting a proposal on an agenda is just a method of assigning it a particular place in the order of business. If the organization had no agenda it would follow the standard order of business and if this were a new subject it would be introduced under New Business. Having an agenda instead just means that the group wishes to have a tighter control over what subjects it expects to consider. After all, time is money.

If this item is a motion to rescind or amend the previous vote, then putting it on an agenda beforehand is a form of previous notice and the rescinding or amending vote would only be a majority vote rather than a 2/3 vote if introduced without notice. From his point of view it is a plus if he is trying to repeal it.

Please understand that in certain types of groups the chairman is actually expected to be actively engaged in the discussion and approval of the subjects at hand. Without knowing the specifics about what kind of group this is and exactly what the chairman is doing it is difficult to say something more helpful.

Usually agendas are created at the beginning of a meeting. The subjects and the order in which they will be considered are determined by vote. All the members present have a chance to include their favorite subjects at the time the agenda is created. The only way to include an item on the agenda is by argumentation in favor of the subject and convincing the other members that it worth their time and effort to discuss it. The only way to keep an item off an agenda is to argue against it and secure enough friends that would agree it should not be considered at this time. It should be clear that an agenda is not created by way of fiat or decree. The members assembled are the ones that make that determination. However, once the agenda has been set it is still possible to delete the item by way of the introduction of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted and change the agenda by way of eliminating that particular line item before it is introduced. If that opportunity never presents itself then once the item is introduced those opposed are left with their powers of persuasion. After all, that is what a deliberative assembly is all about. You should not worry too much since at the next meeting you can try to get on the agenda a motion that would either repeal or modify what was done previously. Conditions change and people's opinions change, right?

 It is not easy to absorb 235,000 words in short order. However, you could do yourself and the other members a big favor by purchasing for yourself and them the shorter version of this book which is entitled Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief, 5"x7" book of a mere 198 pages that is more easily digested. I hope this helps you in some way. Good luck.

The Chair called for a special meeting and created the agenda by "decree" , between regularly scheduled meetings, with no prior knowledge of the Board.  There is only the one issue on the ("his") agenda for this meeting. It is to vote on issue X. Issue X is something that he alone just wants try to repeal. 

I bought the big book. I will get the "In Brief" one too.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

[jstackpo]

29 minutes ago, DanO' said:

The Chair called for a special meeting...

I don't think anybody asked (I skim-looked) to see if your bylaws authorize the president, on his/her own, to call a "Special Meeting" in the first place.

If not, then the meeting is entirely improper and anything "adopted" at the meeting is null and void. If this is the case, be sure to go to the (improper) meeting and raise a point of order that the meeting is entirely out of order.

Check your bylaws.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

3 hours ago, DanO' said:

The Chair called for a special meeting and created the agenda by "decree" , between regularly scheduled meetings, with no prior knowledge of the Board.  There is only the one issue on the ("his") agenda for this meeting. It is to vote on issue X. Issue X is something that he alone just wants try to repeal. 

I bought the big book. I will get the "In Brief" one too.

Thank you everyone for your comments.

If the Chair is empowered by the bylaws to call a special meeting, and the proper procedure was followed, then the motion may be validly considered. It does not require a second if this is a meeting of a small board of about a dozen or fewer members.

[SAILORMAN]

21 hours ago, jstackpo said:

I don't think anybody asked (I skim-looked) to see if your bylaws authorize the president, on his/her own, to call a "Special Meeting" in the first place.

If not, then the meeting is entirely improper and anything "adopted" at the meeting is null and void. If this is the case, be sure to go to the (improper) meeting and raise a point of order that the meeting is entirely out of order.

Check your bylaws.

The President or any 3 other Board Members may call a Special Meeting per our By-Laws. Therefore the "meeting" is proper.

Our By-Laws dictate that RRNR be followed.

The agenda of this meeting has not been "adopted" by any other members of the Board.

The agenda includes a "motion" in that it proposes "that the assembly take certain action." (RRNR Page 27 Line 19) The agenda even lists it as "Action Item".

Neither the reason for the meeting nor the agenda was not included with the notice or call of the meeting. The agenda was provided 21 days after the President called for the meeting.

The "motion" made in the agenda has not been seconded.

The agenda has not been adopted or ratified.

Also not previously mentioned,  the agenda states that certain guests will be present which will cause expenditures (these guest's travel, time, and  accommodations)  be made without prior Board approval as per our Policies and Procedures.

By the way, if it was not clear, this meeting has not been held yet.

The Chair intimidates other members of the Board. But obviously not me.

Any constructive comments would be appreciated,

 

 

[Richard Brown]

19 minutes ago, SAILORMAN said:

Neither the reason for the meeting nor the agenda was not included with the notice or call of the meeting. The agenda was provided 21 days after the President called for the meeting.

As I stated in a prior response to guest Zev in this thread, listing an item in the agenda, even if sent out in advance of the meeting, does not meet the requirement for giving previous notice of a motion as required by RONR for the  purpose of lowering the vote requirement.

It is conceivable that under certain circumstances such a notice in the agenda might suffice, but that would be most unusual and rather unlikely and I do not not believe it is sufficient in this case based on everything we have been told. The agenda was apparently sent out days after the notice or Call of the meeting was issued. 

Except in very rare circumstances, listing a motion to amend or resend something previously adopted in the agenda, even if the proposed agenda is mailed out in advance of the meeting, does not satisfy the requirement of previous notice based on the rules in RONR. I certainly do not believe it is sufficient in this case based on the new information provided by SAILORMAN. 

[SAILORMAN]

18 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

If the Chair is empowered by the bylaws to call a special meeting, and the proper procedure was followed, then the motion may be validly considered. It does not require a second if this is a meeting of a small board of about a dozen or fewer members.

Our By-Laws dictate that RRNR be followed.

The President or any 3 other Board Members may call a Special Meeting per our By-Laws and  only the amount of advance notice and setting of date and time are mentioned in the By-Laws. Therefore it appears that the call for a "Special Meeting" does not conflict with our By-Laws unless it conflicts with RRNR.

This is a small Board of less than a dozen.

The agenda of this meeting has not been "adopted" by any other members of the Board.

The agenda includes a "motion" in that it proposes "that the assembly take certain action." (RRNR Page 27 Line 19) The agenda even lists it as "Action Item".

Neither the reason for the meeting nor the agenda was not included with the notice and call for the meeting. The agenda was provided 21 days after the President called for the meeting.

The "motion" made in the agenda has not been seconded. "Guest Who's Coming to Dinner" above, appears to be correct per Page 488 Line 1, that a second is not necessary because we are a small board.  However it has been customary for over 20 years that the Chair has alway required a second to any motion.

The agenda has not been adopted or ratified.

Also not previously mentioned,  the agenda states that certain guests will be present which will cause expenditures (these guest's travel, time, and  accommodations)  be made without prior Board approval as per our previously adopted Policies and Procedures.

By the way, if it was not clear, this meeting has not been held yet.

The Chair intimidates other members of the Board. But obviously not me.

Any constructive comments would be appreciated,

[jstackpo]

17 minutes ago, SAILORMAN said:

Any constructive comments would be appreciated,

Here's one:

Excepting particular motions that require a previous notice to be even considered (e.g., bylaw amendments) or to be adopted by a majority (rather than 2/3) vote (e.g., amend something previously adopted), there is NO general RONR requirement for advance notice of any motion at all, whether via a published agenda or any other means.

Adopting a (pre-published) agenda at the start of a meeting in NO WAY "makes" the new motions listed in the agenda.  A member still has to get recognized and say "Mr. Chairman, I move that..." in order to get things under way.  This takes place in the "General Orders" section of the standard order of business. (p. 371)  And adopting an agenda IN NO WAY prohibits a member making a brand new unannounced motion on a different topic, under "New Business".  Not adopting an agenda simply means that any new motions that would have been in the agenda can come up as "New Business" as the mover(s) wish.

So tell us how giving advance notice of a motion that is going to come up is "intimidating"?

[Dan Honemann]

49 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Here's one:

Excepting particular motions that require a previous notice to be even considered (e.g., bylaw amendments) or to be adopted by a majority (rather than 2/3) vote (e.g., amend something previously adopted), there is NO general RONR requirement for advance notice of any motion at all, whether via a published agenda or any other means.

Adopting a (pre-published) agenda at the start of a meeting in NO WAY "makes" the new motions listed in the agenda.  A member still has to get recognized and say "Mr. Chairman, I move that..." in order to get things under way.  This takes place in the "General Orders" section of the standard order of business. (p. 371)  And adopting an agenda IN NO WAY prohibits a member making a brand new unannounced motion on a different topic, under "New Business".  Not adopting an agenda simply means that any new motions that would have been in the agenda can come up as "New Business" as the mover(s) wish.

So tell us how giving advance notice of a motion that is going to come up is "intimidating"?

Hasn't Sailorman been referring to a special meeting? 

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, SAILORMAN said:

The agenda includes a "motion" in that it proposes "that the assembly take certain action." (RRNR Page 27 Line 19) The agenda even lists it as "Action Item".

Motions can only be made at a meeting. Your question about whether the chair can make a motion in the agenda, or whether such a motion requires a second from other board members, does not make much sense since the meeting hasn't happened yet.

The agenda that the chair sent might list a motion on it, but that doesn't constitute the chair's stating the motion to the board, which can only happen at a meeting.

1 hour ago, SAILORMAN said:

Neither the reason for the meeting nor the agenda was not included with the notice and call for the meeting. The agenda was provided 21 days after the President called for the meeting.

Well, this could be a problem.  RONR states: "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the [special] meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance. . . . The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." (RONR 11th ed., p. 91, ll. 31-35; p. 93, ll. 3-4)

Just sending out a notice that on such-and-such a day there will be a special meeting, without stating the purpose of the meeting, is not proper notice of a special meeting. The question is then whether the "agenda" that the president sent out can be considered proper notice of the meeting.

1 hour ago, SAILORMAN said:

The "motion" made in the agenda has not been seconded. "Guest Who's Coming to Dinner" above, appears to be correct per Page 488 Line 1, that a second is not necessary because we are a small board.  However it has been customary for over 20 years that the Chair has alway required a second to any motion.

Again, it makes no sense to say that the motion has not been seconded, since the meeting hasn't taken place yet. You can try to raise the issue about whether seconds are required once the chair states the question at the meeting.

[SAILORMAN]

15 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Hasn't Sailorman been referring to a special meeting? 

Yes I have.

[SAILORMAN]

13 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Motions can only be made at a meeting. Your question about whether the chair can make a motion in the agenda, or whether such a motion requires a second from other board members, does not make much sense since the meeting hasn't happened yet.

The agenda that the chair sent might list a motion on it, but that doesn't constitute the chair's stating the motion to the board, which can only happen at a meeting.

Well, this could be a problem.  RONR states: "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the [special] meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance. . . . The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." (RONR 11th ed., p. 91, ll. 31-35; p. 93, ll. 3-4)

Just sending out a notice that on such-and-such a day there will be a special meeting, without stating the purpose of the meeting, is not proper notice of a special meeting. The question is then whether the "agenda" that the president sent out can be considered proper notice of the meeting.

Again, it makes no sense to say that the motion has not been seconded, since the meeting hasn't taken place yet. You can try to raise the issue about whether seconds are required once the chair states the question at the meeting.

So during the meeting I could attempt to amend the agenda and/or object to the question?

[SAILORMAN]

Doesn't the Board need to adopt the agenda at the beginning of the meeting since it was not previously?

[SAILORMAN]

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

Here's one:

Excepting particular motions that require a previous notice to be even considered (e.g., bylaw amendments) or to be adopted by a majority (rather than 2/3) vote (e.g., amend something previously adopted), there is NO general RONR requirement for advance notice of any motion at all, whether via a published agenda or any other means.

Adopting a (pre-published) agenda at the start of a meeting in NO WAY "makes" the new motions listed in the agenda.  A member still has to get recognized and say "Mr. Chairman, I move that..." in order to get things under way.  This takes place in the "General Orders" section of the standard order of business. (p. 371)  And adopting an agenda IN NO WAY prohibits a member making a brand new unannounced motion on a different topic, under "New Business".  Not adopting an agenda simply means that any new motions that would have been in the agenda can come up as "New Business" as the mover(s) wish.

So tell us how giving advance notice of a motion that is going to come up is "intimidating"?

The biblical reference had a calming effect. Thank you.

[Atul Kapur]

It sounds like the Chair has called the meeting for the purpose of Rescinding Something Previously Adopted. We haven't seen the exact wording of the Notice/Call of the meeting to be able to say whether it meets the requirements Mr. Gerber quoted above.

22 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

RONR states: "Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the [special] meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance. . . . The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." (RONR 11th ed., p. 91, ll. 31-35; p. 93, ll. 3-4)

Objection to Consideration is not in order as the motion to Rescind is an Incidental Main Motion. And it requires a 2/3 vote to prevent consideration. I think what you would want to do is raise a Point of Order that the notice of the meeting was deficient and therefore the motion to Rescind is out of order. If you Appeal the presumed ruling against you, that only requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling.

[SAILORMAN]

1 hour ago, jstackpo said:

Here's one:

Excepting particular motions that require a previous notice to be even considered (e.g., bylaw amendments) or to be adopted by a majority (rather than 2/3) vote (e.g., amend something previously adopted), there is NO general RONR requirement for advance notice of any motion at all, whether via a published agenda or any other means.

Adopting a (pre-published) agenda at the start of a meeting in NO WAY "makes" the new motions listed in the agenda.  A member still has to get recognized and say "Mr. Chairman, I move that..." in order to get things under way.  This takes place in the "General Orders" section of the standard order of business. (p. 371)  And adopting an agenda IN NO WAY prohibits a member making a brand new unannounced motion on a different topic, under "New Business".  Not adopting an agenda simply means that any new motions that would have been in the agenda can come up as "New Business" as the mover(s) wish.

So tell us how giving advance notice of a motion that is going to come up is "intimidating"?

This agenda in does not nearly follow the standard order of business. It just starts with discussing the motion being put forth and then voting on it.