Time reached for agreed upon adjournment m-chair’s duties

[Guest Catb]

 I am chairing what will likely be a contentious meeting. I searched through the threads for answers, but I’m not sure. Typically at our meetings someone makes a motion to adjourn at 4:30. It is seconded and approved. 

If we are in the middle of a discussion and 430 rolls around, what do I do? Do I simply say it is 430, pause, and allow someone to make a motion (call to question, table, extend the meeting) or do I end the meeting at 4:30 without a vote (as it has already been voted upon).  This latter case was discussed below.  Are both options correct?

An adjournment may only be adjourned without a vote in the following circumstances:

• The time for adjournment has been previously set by the assembly and that time has arrived.

[Bruce Lages]

If at this meeting there is a motion made and adopted to adjourn at 4:30, then yes, when 4:30 comes, you will declare that because the time set for adjournment has come, the meeting is adjourned. If you think this will cause a major problem for the assembly, you should discuss beforehand with some willing members setting a later time if possible. Alternatively, if the members really do not want to adjourn as time winds down, a motion made earlier to set a time for adjournment can be amended, using the motion to amend something previously adopted to change the time for adjournment. It will require a 2/3 vote to amend a previously set time for adjournment.

In addition, if it is possible for your organization, an adjourned meeting can be established using the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn. An adjourned meeting will be a continuation of this contentious meeting, set for some agreeable date and time in the near future, and will begin with whatever business was pending when the first meeting was adjourned. This motion takes precedence over any other motion and can be made right up until you actually declare the first meeting adjourned.

But perhaps the first thing to try is, if a motion to adjourn at a specific time is made, you as chair can make sure the assembly understands what that will mean for cutting off any business pending at that time. Maybe they will decide they don't want to set an adjournment time if they understand the consequences.

[Chris Harrison]

If there is a member speaking on the question should the Chair announce the adjournment at 4:30 on the dot or wait until the member has finished speaking?

[Bruce Lages]

4 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

If there is a member speaking on the question should the Chair announce the adjournment at 4:30 on the dot or wait until the member has finished speaking?

Good question - I don't see where RONR addresses this, so I'm hesitant to state an answer. I'm leaning towards the opinion that a set adjournment time might take precedence over a speaker having the floor.

[Guest Guest Catb]

Thank you so much. This is amazingly helpful.  A portion of the committee wants the legislation to not be voted or tabled,  I want to fail, someone it to pass. The sponsor will obviously want it voted on. 

Would you inform the committee that any unfinished business is considered after the minutes st our next meeting? Meetings are pre-set every month. In fact we are holding a special meeting just for this consideration.

 

Would you announce at 4:28 that we will be adjourning in two minutes? This might allow someone to make a motion to extend the meeting or a call to question or to table?

[Guest Catb]

Oops, I didn’t mean “A portion of the committee wants the legislation to not be voted or tabled,  I want to fail, someone it to pass”.  I meant “A portion of the committee wants the legislation to not be voted on or tabled,  some want it to fail, and some want it to pass.”  I have no opinion right now.

[Bruce Lages]

If you are holding a special meeting for this topic, then under the rules in RONR this is the only topic that can be considered at the special meeting if that is what the notice of this special meeting stated. No minutes, no other business unless it was listed in the notice of meeting. At a regular meeting, unfinished business would come after officer and committee reports in the standard order of business.

Any information the chair can provide that helps the assembly function effectively is always worthwhile.

[Guest Catb]

Yes, I guess I mean, the next meeting would be standard and not a special meeting.

i like the idea of clarifying what the outcomes of various motions will be for the committee.  Perhaps, “let the minutes reflect that it is 4:25”, would give the opportunity for a motion to call to question or table to occur.  If nothing, then, we adjourn at 4:30 with the matter left open to the next meeting.

Thanks Bruce!

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

Good question - I don't see where RONR addresses this, so I'm hesitant to state an answer. I'm leaning towards the opinion that a set adjournment time might take precedence over a speaker having the floor.

A time limit for debate can interrupt a member’s speech, so I see no reason why a time limit for the full meeting would not.

The assembly may, however, choose to extend the time of the meeting by a 2/3 vote (even at the time of adjournment) and RONR also notes that unanimous consent may be appropriate in cases where a member’s time in debate has expired, which may also be appropriate here.

“If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned, as described for a recess on page 232. If the assembly does not then wish to adjourn, the matter is handled as a case of setting aside the orders of the day, as explained on pages 222–23 (see also p. 370).” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 240-241)

”The correction and approval of minutes (pp. 354–55) is an example of business that is normally handled by unanimous consent. As a second example, assume that a speaker whose time has expired in debate on a motion asks for two additional minutes. If the chair thinks that all members will approve, he may handle the matter as follows: 

CHAIR: If there is no objection, the member's time will be extended two minutes ... [pause]. Since there is no objection, the member's time is extended two minutes.

Or: 

CHAIR: Is there any objection to the member's time being extended two minutes? ... [pause]. The chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered. 

Or, particularly if no objection is anticipated: 

CHAIR: Without objection, the member's time is extended two minutes. 

In cases where unanimous consent is already apparent, the chair may sometimes assume it. For example, if everyone is obviously absorbed in listening to a speaker who seems near the end of his remarks, the chair may allow him to conclude without interruption, although his time has expired.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 55-56)

1 hour ago, Guest Catb said:

Yes, I guess I mean, the next meeting would be standard and not a special meeting.

i like the idea of clarifying what the outcomes of various motions will be for the committee.  Perhaps, “let the minutes reflect that it is 4:25”, would give the opportunity for a motion to call to question or table to occur.  If nothing, then, we adjourn at 4:30 with the matter left open to the next meeting.

Thanks Bruce!

I would note that the proper motion for this purpose is Postpone to a Certain Time, not Lay on the Table. See FAQ #12.

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

I'm leaning towards the opinion that a set adjournment time might take precedence over a speaker having the floor.

I am looking for something that tells me that such a thing is possible but I cannot find it. Pages 238-239 tell me that there are six additional parliamentary steps that can be taken either while a motion to adjourn is pending or immediately after the adoption of a motion to adjourn. None of these six steps suggests to me that the speaker can be interrupted, any or all of these six steps considered, and then the speaker's speech left hanging in mid air and the meeting adjourned. So, if the interrupting of the speaker is possible I would appreciate someone indicating where I can find it.

Also, if this is a committee that is considering some motion that has been referred to them, it seems to me that they cannot just do nothing. The assembly that referred the matter is relying on their recommendation, which could be anything, but not nothing. They can recommend that it be adopted, with or without such-and-such amendments, recommend its rejection, or return it "without a recommendation." The assembly, on the other hand, can adopt it, reject it, or postpone it indefinitely. The thing that bothers me is the implication that the committee can simply ignore the motion and thereby get rid of it and somehow prevent the assembly from taking a position on its merits.

[Josh Martin]

21 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Also, if this is a committee that is considering some motion that has been referred to them, it seems to me that they cannot just do nothing. The assembly that referred the matter is relying on their recommendation, which could be anything, but not nothing. They can recommend that it be adopted, with or without such-and-such amendments, recommend its rejection, or return it "without a recommendation." The assembly, on the other hand, can adopt it, reject it, or postpone it indefinitely. The thing that bothers me is the implication that the committee can simply ignore the motion and thereby get rid of it and somehow prevent the assembly from taking a position on its merits.

It is not clear whether the motion in question was referred to the committee or whether it originated in the committee.

In the event that the motion was referred to the committee and the committee is attempting to circumvent its duties, the motion to Discharge a Committee exists for that reason.

Edited March 7, 2019 at 02:12 AM by Josh Martin

[Nathan Zook]

I am not a fan of adoption a motion to adjourn at a fixed time.  For my best example, I give you my most recent state convention:

Convention adopts agenda with 5:00 sine die.

Business of the convention is to elect delegates and alternates to the national convention, nominate electors, amend rules, and adopt a platform.

Convention gets a slow start.  Elections in the caucuses run long.  Elections for at-large delegates and alternates run long.  How long?  It's almost 5.

Chairman announces we are approaching the time, requests a motion to extend 10 minutes.  Passes.

Finish elections, @ approximately 5:08.  Chairman requests motion to extend 10 minutes.  Debate on platform starts.

@ approximately 5:12, a member has a heart attack.

Convention is in disarray, medics are in room at 5:19.  It is highly questionable if the motion to extend was made prior to 5:20.

Yes, these things really do happen.  Members really do have heart attacks minutes or moments before your started end time.  Please don't set the time of adjournment until after the meat of the business of the assembly has passed.

[Guest Catb]

For clarification,  yes, the item was referred to the committee.

the restriction in the time (the motion) is related to a Work to Rule union issue.

If the committee doesn’t feel ready to vote, it sounds like they should postpone to a set time.  Otherwise if we just adjourn it is added to our next agenda’s unfinished business.  I cannot as chair force either of these things though.  I needed to know more how I deal with the fact that we voted to end at 4:30...then 4:30 arrives.  

It sounds like I should not interrupt this speaker. My current plan is to state that it is 430, pause and allow someone to make an appropriate emotion. This motion could be to extend the meeting, to postpone to a later date, call the question, or to adjourn.  It sounds like I should not interrupt this speaker. My current plan is to state that it is 430, pause and allow someone to make an appropriate motion. This motion could be to extend the meeting, to postpone to a later date, call the question, or to adjourn.  Are there other options I should present? My goal is transparency at the beginning of the meeting.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Catb said:

It sounds like I should not interrupt this speaker. My current plan is to state that it is 430, pause and allow someone to make an appropriate emotion. This motion could be to extend the meeting, to postpone to a later date, call the question, or to adjourn.  It sounds like I should not interrupt this speaker. My current plan is to state that it is 430, pause and allow someone to make an appropriate motion. This motion could be to extend the meeting, to postpone to a later date, call the question, or to adjourn.  Are there other options I should present? My goal is transparency at the beginning of the meeting

The only motion out of those you have listed which would be in order at 4:30 would be the motion to extend the meeting. At that time, you may certainly note that such a motion would be in order, especially if you believe the assembly would not otherwise be aware of this option. Motions to postpone or to call the question would not be in order at that time, unless the assembly first voted to extend the meeting. The motion to adjourn is unnecessary, since the time for adjournment has been previously set.

As you have suggested previously, it may be prudent to start suggesting options prior to 4:30.

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I am not a fan of adoption a motion to adjourn at a fixed time.  For my best example, I give you my most recent state convention:

Convention adopts agenda with 5:00 sine die.

Business of the convention is to elect delegates and alternates to the national convention, nominate electors, amend rules, and adopt a platform.

Convention gets a slow start.  Elections in the caucuses run long.  Elections for at-large delegates and alternates run long.  How long?  It's almost 5.

Chairman announces we are approaching the time, requests a motion to extend 10 minutes.  Passes.

Finish elections, @ approximately 5:08.  Chairman requests motion to extend 10 minutes.  Debate on platform starts.

@ approximately 5:12, a member has a heart attack.

Convention is in disarray, medics are in room at 5:19.  It is highly questionable if the motion to extend was made prior to 5:20.

Yes, these things really do happen.  Members really do have heart attacks minutes or moments before your started end time.  Please don't set the time of adjournment until after the meat of the business of the assembly has passed.

It would be treated as would a special order set for the time.  The members could vote  not to adjourn.  The act of the chair not announcing that the meeting time has arrived, and no member calls for adjournment, the meeting continues. 

[Guest Catb]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

As you have suggested previously, it may be prudent to start suggesting options prior to 4:30.

I did not even think of the other motions being out of order. If they are made at 4:25, then they are in order and allowable? Yes?

 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Catb said:

I did not even think of the other motions being out of order. If they are made at 4:25, then they are in order and allowable? Yes?

Yes, all of the motions listed would be in order at 4:25, assuming there is no other reason they would be out of order at that time.

I would note that the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is debatable, so if the assembly waits until 4:25 to figure out how to handle this situation, it would probably be prudent to immediately follow that motion with a motion for the Previous Question (or Call to Question).

Edited March 7, 2019 at 05:37 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Catb]

Yes, the latter requires a 2/3 vote and does appear higher is the level.

[J. J.]

It would probably take a 2/3 vote to stop the assembly from adjourning at 4:30, it they are still in session.

A motion to set an adjournment to a future time is an incidental main motion (p. 234, ll. 9-13).  It would require a 2/3 vote or a majority of the entire membership (or previous notice) to rescind that motion.  At the time set for adjournment, this would be a motion to set aside the orders of the day (p. 241, ll. 1-4).  That requires a 2/3 vote (pp. 222-3).

[Guest Catb]

If inquiring minds want to know... The motion that is typically made at the beginning to adjourn at 4:30 didn’t happen. Then the issue became the fact that we never set an end time for the meeting…But all the advice and thoughts above provided me the appropriate background to handle what may come down the path. I felt like a confident chair. Thank you all.

[Gary Novosielski]

13 hours ago, Guest Catb said:

My current plan is to state that it is 430, pause and allow someone to make an appropriate motion. This motion could be to extend the meeting, to postpone to a later date, call the question, or to adjourn.  Are there other options I should present? My goal is transparency at the beginning of the meeting.

 

 

Other than agreeing with Mr. Martin regarding what's in order, I'd say yes, that's the general idea. But in my view, I think when 4:30 arrives, and someone is speaking, this would properly interrupt the speaker.  I would say something like:

"The time for adjournment has arrived.  Accordingly, <pause> if there is no motion to extend the meeting, <long pause> the meeting <hover gavel> is adjourned. <Gavel>" 

And be prepared for a barely-under-the-wire allowable-at-adjournment motion.   

Should the motion to extend be made and adopted, (and if someone was interrupted):

"The motion is adopted, and the meeting is extended until time.  (Mr S. has the floor.)"  

Edited March 8, 2019 at 02:24 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Zev]

18 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

...this would properly interrupt the speaker.

Perhaps the language you quote is an adaptation of the language used on page 537. However, I still can't find a place that says explicitly that this is a possibility. Someone help me out here.

[J. J.]

42 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Perhaps the language you quote is an adaptation of the language used on page 537. However, I still can't find a place that says explicitly that this is a possibility. Someone help me out here.

Try p. 234, ll. 9-13, and then pp. 220-21.

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Perhaps the language you quote is an adaptation of the language used on page 537. However, I still can't find a place that says explicitly that this is a possibility. Someone help me out here.

I think p. 221, l. 5 (item 3.) applies, considered in the light of p. 219, ll.17-20.

It is not completely clear to me that a scheduled adjournment is in fact an Order of the Day.  We learn on p. 222, l. 22 that an Order of the Day, when proceeded to, is "invariably" a main motion that becomes pending.  Yet when the hour of adjournment arrives, a motion to Adjourn does not become the pending question; adjournment is simply announced by the chair.

Still, if the assembly wishes then to extend the meeting, it does so by Setting Aside the Orders of the Day.  So, is an adjournment with a fixed time an Order of the Day, or not? Is it in the nature of a Special Order? A General Order that has been set for a particular hour?  Something else?  I welcome opinions.  If it is an Order of the Day, then I submit that it should interrupt a member who has the floor, whether as a result of a Call for the Orders of the Day, or simply a result of a diligent chair, as described ibid. p. 219, upon noting that the hour has arrived.

Edited March 8, 2019 at 05:05 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Zev]

16 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

If it is an Order of the Day, then I submit that it should interrupt a member who has the floor, whether as a result of a Call for the Orders of the Day, or simply a result of a diligent chair, as described ibid. p. 219, upon noting that the hour has arrived.

I am willing to accept this. After all, it appears to me to quack like a duck. Thank you for your time and effort.