Guest SAA Posted March 23, 2019 at 04:51 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 04:51 PM This is a hypothetical : Two resolutions are properly submitted before a meeting . Resolution # 1 concerns a proposal that the organization purchase an additional new truck . Resolutions of this kind have have carried in the past ,on occasion ,on other occasions they have been defeated . Resolution #2 is a proposal to amend one of the provisions of the bylaws . There is other business , as well, properly on the draft agenda After Call to Order a motion is made to adopt the agenda . While that is pending a motion is made to amend the main motion to change the agenda by striking off Resolutions # 1 and 2 from the agenda . Would such a motion to amend be in order ?. Can the assembly " defeat " a properly filed resolution by simply striking it from the agenda ? Does amending to " change " an agenda only allow the re-arranging the order of business items on an agenda ? Does it matter what the nature of a proposed resolution is ,as to striking it off during approval of the agenda process, if striking -off is allowed ? Thanks for any response . SA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Geiger Posted March 23, 2019 at 05:33 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 05:33 PM Items can be struck from a draft agenda by a majority vote, just as with any other item being amended. However, unless the bylaws or a special rule of order says otherwise, any member can simply move the resolutions during the New Business portion of the meeting (provided someone is willing to second). If a majority of the members are willing to strike the resolutions from the agenda, that doesn't bode well for its passage, but that doesn't mean it can't be attempted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted March 23, 2019 at 07:03 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 07:03 PM Thank-you Mr. Geiger . It would never have occurred to me that in such a case , where a resolution matter was struck out from an agenda ,that a member could simply offer that again under " New Business " . But for this to be accurate it means that the assembly would be again dealing with a matter it had already disposed of at the same meaning (?) - would it not ? My understanding was that once a matter had been voted on and determined by the assembly it cannot come back before the same meeting for consideration , unless perhaps through the motion to reconsider . Have I got that confused ? In addition I had understood that " New Business " was restricted to items of business that had not been in play before the assembly ,at all ,until after a meeting had been started ? Thanks for any further reply Mr.Geiger, or the view of any other forum members, who agree or disagree on any of the context here .Before I report back to those concerned I wish to make sure my report has the backing of some of the experts on this very helpful forum. Thanks to all . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted March 23, 2019 at 07:16 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 07:16 PM (edited) "New Business" simply refers to matters initiated in the present meeting. See p. 26 line 17. If you're voting on adopting an agenda, you're dealing with that agenda, not the matters #1 and #2. Having a matter on an agenda isn't the same as moving it. Maybe your group would be better served by using the standard order of business, rather than adopting an agenda. (Although I do note you said this was a hypothetical situation.) Edited March 23, 2019 at 07:18 PM by Tom Coronite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 23, 2019 at 08:00 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 08:00 PM When you adopt an agenda all you are doing is setting the priority of the various items listed in the agenda - see page 371. Material in an adopted agenda becomes "General Orders", which has a higher priority that "New Business" - see page 26. So if you amend the proposed agenda by striking an item out of the list all you have done is decide that the item removed from the agenda does not merit the higher priority. You have NOT "disposed" of the item itself -- as noted, the item may be brought up under New Business by anybody who cares to move it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 23, 2019 at 08:24 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 08:24 PM 1 hour ago, Guest SAA said: But for this to be accurate it means that the assembly would be again dealing with a matter it had already disposed of at the same meaning (?) - would it not ? No. Striking a motion from an agenda is not disposing of the motion. 1 hour ago, Guest SAA said: My understanding was that once a matter had been voted on and determined by the assembly it cannot come back before the same meeting for consideration , unless perhaps through the motion to reconsider . Have I got that confused ? No, this is entirely correct, but when an assembly has struck a motion from the agenda, it has made no determination on the motion itself. It has simply decided the motion shall not be on the agenda. The purpose of an agenda is not to limit what business may be considered, but to ensure that the most important business is considered first. 1 hour ago, Guest SAA said: In addition I had understood that " New Business " was restricted to items of business that had not been in play before the assembly ,at all ,until after a meeting had been started ? No, this is not correct. Merely submitting an item prior to a meeting does not, in and of itself, make it something other than New Business. The assembly could have made it a Special Order or General Order by placing it on the agenda, but apparently decided not to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted March 23, 2019 at 09:31 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 09:31 PM I agree with all of the previous responses, but with a caveat: If the bylaws (or perhaps a special rule of order) specify that only items on the agenda may be considered at a meeting, that would create a problem and perhaps cause the proposed motions to be out of order as new business if they are not on the agenda. Some organizations have such a rule, or a variation of it, and those rules very often prove problematic because the can prevent the organization from taking up something important and urgent that cannot or should not have to wait until the next meeting. Organizations with such a rule usually require that all items of business be submitted to the chair or the secretary a certain number of days in advance and placed on the agenda in order to be taken up at the meeting. The better of such rules provide for unforeseen business to be added to the agenda or taken up with a super-majority vote of some kind. Such rules can also sometimes be suspended with a two thirds vote unless they are considered in the nature of a notice provision. A notice provision cannot be suspended or waived. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:09 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:09 PM Thank's everyone for the explanations - I think (? ) I have it now . In the hypothetical , above ( which is likely to become an actual event ) it states that it is indicated that the two resolutions were ( not specified where ) on the agenda . But my understanding is that were resolutions properly submitted ,with a plain request that they go on an agenda - then they would properly , and always go , under : Unfinished Business and General Orders Would one of you kind rules guru's please confirm that . Thanks Then if they were struck out on the motion to approve the agenda - that would not be the end necessarily . When the meeting gets to New Business both could be raised as motions from the floor .This would apply for a bylaw resolution or any manner of proposal . But - Mindful in this ,of Mr Brown's post . If they actually must to be LISTED somewhere on the agenda to go forward , a different path may need be taken by the resolution filer who has had their proposal struck out at the outset -if they wish to go forward. Again ,would one of the experts please confirm that . Extremely helpful and thanks again to all ,and for any further wisdoms . SSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:18 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:18 PM (edited) 10 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: But my understanding is that were resolutions properly submitted ,with a plain request that they go on an agenda - then they would properly , and always go , under : Unfinished Business and General Orders Would one of you kind rules guru's please confirm that . Thanks Confirmed. Signed, your friendly neighborhood guru. 10 minutes ago, Guest SAA said: If they actually must to be LISTED somewhere on the agenda to go forward , a different path may need be taken by the resolution filer who has had their proposal struck out at the outset -if they wish to go forward. Again ,would one of the experts please confirm that . Not so confident about that one. It would depend entirely on the exact terms of the "must be listed" rule. Such a rule is not to be found in RONR, so you are on your own here. Edited March 23, 2019 at 10:21 PM by jstackpo Augmented "must be listed" paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:21 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:21 PM Quote Although the terms order of business, agenda, and program relate primarily to the business of an entire session, the same terms are also applied to a part of the whole, in speaking of "the order of business," "the agenda," or "the program" of a meeting within a session. RONR 11th edition, page 352 lines 2-6. Part of the problem seems to be that many people are frequenting meetings of certain organizations that have state-mandated previous notice requirements as to what subjects may be considered. They then use the word agenda to signify the list of items that they may consider and no standard order of business exists; with the resulting effect that there is also no new business category, only the agenda items. In other words, in their minds an order of business and an agenda are two mutually-exclusive things. If we accept that an agenda may be a part of the whole and at the same time may be the entire meeting, then it seems to me that the problem evaporates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:46 PM Report Share Posted March 23, 2019 at 10:46 PM Either evaporates or forms a hopelessly opaque cloud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted March 24, 2019 at 06:48 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 06:48 PM Thanks again to all who have posted on this subject . One follow up inquiry . if a properly postponed matter ( from an earlier 2 months before meeting ) is struck from the agenda ,on a subsidiary motion to amend , on the main motion to approve the agenda ,how is the proponent to get it back before the assembly ? Must he /she await a further meeting and make the same main motion again , or would it be allowed to simply raise that same proposal ( as note above ) when New Business is reached at the meeting - even if that were unlikely to carry . He /she could still bring it to a vote on the substance of the postponed matter . Thanks for any additional response. SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 24, 2019 at 07:02 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 07:02 PM 22 hours ago, Guest SAA said: But for this to be accurate it means that the assembly would be again dealing with a matter it had already disposed of at the same meaning (?) - would it not ? No, quite the contrary. The Assembly affirmatively decided not to consider the matter at all, in the normal course of the agenda. So dealing with it under New Business would be the first time in that session it had actually been considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted March 24, 2019 at 08:04 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 08:04 PM Is there anyone available who could address the issue of the postponed item of business ,that is struck out ( above last post of SAA) - can that simply be addressed/raised as unfinished business, at the same meeting . Same as when a general order is struck out on the motion to amend approval of the agenda . Thanks SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 24, 2019 at 08:31 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 08:31 PM Hold on a minute here. If an item (a motion) has been postponed from the, not "a", previous meeting, it was, at least partially, "considered" back then. It was the pending motion when it was being considered. The act of postponing then made the motion a general order for the next meeting. No need to be concerned about some "agenda" -- a list of other motions to be made into general orders by the act of adopting the agenda/list (RONR, page 371). If the chairman knows what he/she is doing (or is playing fair), he will reintroduce the postponed motion (no other "reintroduction" is appropriate) as a general order when the meeting gets to that point in the order of business. If he doesn't bring it up, raise a point of order to the effect that he should. It doesn't appear to be possible, by majority, to undo the creation of a general order created by postponement (although that might be a good question for a later time). General orders are created by postponing motions, "or otherwise" - RONR, p. 359. The "or otherwises" include adopting an agenda/list, see page 365, line 20ff. They are in effect, parallel tracks, that work independently. SSA: please take the time to get and carefully read section 41 of RONR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted March 24, 2019 at 09:03 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 09:03 PM I still do not know if this organization has a standard order of business or whether it adopts an agenda instead of following the standard order of business. These two terms are racing around the track and passing each other over and over again. So, which one is it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 24, 2019 at 09:54 PM Report Share Posted March 24, 2019 at 09:54 PM 45 minutes ago, Guest Zev said: So, which one is it? SSA's bylaws should answer that. Do they adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority? If so, they have adopted the Standard order of Business - p. 25, line 32ff, and 353, line 17ff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:27 AM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:27 AM An agenda is always in use for this organization Mr . Zev . Does that help to allow a better answer from you in this connection . Please t have that if so . And Mr. "Jstackpo ", I do not, at all ,understand you reply -But for sure I will read # 41 of RONR closely From what you and others have written on this subject a motion to adopt a proposed agenda ( RONR p.371 to 373 ) when pending, is subject to a motion to amend that agenda ,by striking out various matters of business .From RONR it does not appear ( p. 373 ,at all ) that there is some limitation on what can be struck out - it can be anything the assembly pleases - or so I gathered from the earlier discussions . Therefore ,it seems to follow that a motion to amend can be applied to strike out a postponed matter listed on the agenda under " Unfinished business and General Orders ". Certainly it seems to be made clear above that a general order listed can be struck out . If that is so then too (?) why not to, can a postponed matter be struck from the list on the proposed agenda ? I understand that it would have been discussed earlier - but is that then determinative - if a matter was discussed at all at an earlier meeting - it cannot be struck off the agenda when the motion to adopt the agenda is pending ? I dont see that this is provided for in RONR in any way ( p. 373 ).I'm for sure missing something here ? Thanks for any clarification . SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Coronite Posted March 25, 2019 at 12:45 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 12:45 PM I may be oversimplifying quite a bit, but it seems to me that you (SAA) are confusing listing and prioritizing items of business (agenda) with the actual conducting of the business of a meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 25, 2019 at 01:28 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 01:28 PM 18 hours ago, Guest SAA said: One follow up inquiry . if a properly postponed matter ( from an earlier 2 months before meeting ) is struck from the agenda ,on a subsidiary motion to amend , on the main motion to approve the agenda ,how is the proponent to get it back before the assembly ? Must he /she await a further meeting and make the same main motion again , or would it be allowed to simply raise that same proposal ( as note above ) when New Business is reached at the meeting - even if that were unlikely to carry . He /she could still bring it to a vote on the substance of the postponed matter . If a matter has been postponed to the current meeting, then the matter comes up under General Orders whether or not it is listed on the agenda. RONR does not directly address the question of when such an item is to be considered, but presumably it would be under General Orders after all General Orders listed on the agenda have been considered. 17 hours ago, Guest SAA said: Is there anyone available who could address the issue of the postponed item of business ,that is struck out ( above last post of SAA) - can that simply be addressed/raised as unfinished business, at the same meeting . Same as when a general order is struck out on the motion to amend approval of the agenda . A postponed motion is actually a general order, not unfinished business. 10 hours ago, Guest SAA said: From what you and others have written on this subject a motion to adopt a proposed agenda ( RONR p.371 to 373 ) when pending, is subject to a motion to amend that agenda ,by striking out various matters of business .From RONR it does not appear ( p. 373 ,at all ) that there is some limitation on what can be struck out - it can be anything the assembly pleases - or so I gathered from the earlier discussions . Therefore ,it seems to follow that a motion to amend can be applied to strike out a postponed matter listed on the agenda under " Unfinished business and General Orders ". Certainly it seems to be made clear above that a general order listed can be struck out . If that is so then too (?) why not to, can a postponed matter be struck from the list on the proposed agenda ? I understand that it would have been discussed earlier - but is that then determinative - if a matter was discussed at all at an earlier meeting - it cannot be struck off the agenda when the motion to adopt the agenda is pending ? I dont see that this is provided for in RONR in any way ( p. 373 ).I'm for sure missing something here ? The assembly may strike an item which is a General Order by virtue of postponement from an agenda. Even if this is done, however, the motion remains a General Order. This situation is different from the earlier situation (in which the item was a general order solely by virtue of its inclusion on the agenda), because in this case, the item is a general order because it was postponed. The bottom line is once again that the purpose of an agenda is not to limit what business is considered, but to ensure that the most important business is considered first. Striking items from an agenda does not prevent their consideration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:14 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 02:14 PM 43 minutes ago, Josh Martin said: The bottom line is once again that the purpose of an agenda is not to limit what business is considered, but to ensure that the most important business is considered first. Striking items from an agenda does not prevent their consideration. It seems to me that the OP may well belong to an organization controlled by a sunshine law, which would lead to believing that it is generally true that items must be on the agenda to be considered. However, in reference to the current question, I would recommend looking at the law carefully - it would be unusual (and useless) for it to exclude from consideration an item that appeared on the posted agenda but was struck at the meeting itself. Doing that would, in fact, defeat the purpose of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Zev Posted March 25, 2019 at 07:09 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 07:09 PM 4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: It seems to me that the OP may well belong to an organization controlled by a sunshine law, which would lead to believing that it is generally true that items must be on the agenda to be considered. Exactly. It appears that what we call agenda and what they call agenda are two different things. 4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: ...it would be unusual (and useless) for it to exclude from consideration an item that appeared on the posted agenda but was struck at the meeting itself. Yes, it does seem a little bit strange at first. However, if only items posted on a notice for the meeting, this now being the agenda for this meeting, then when that time comes and the assembly decides not to consider it then I fail to see what harm has resulted. 4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: Doing that would, in fact, defeat the purpose of the law. If the item was on their agenda then they fulfilled the legal requirements; they just deleted it from the agenda, or in our parlance, postponed it indefinitely. Trying to Amend Something Previously Adopted and attach a brand new item to the agenda and bypass the legal requirements by doing so, would in my estimation be an attempt to defeat the purpose of that law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted March 25, 2019 at 07:28 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 07:28 PM 14 minutes ago, Guest Zev said: Yes, it does seem a little bit strange at first. However, if only items posted on a notice for the meeting, this now being the agenda for this meeting, then when that time comes and the assembly decides not to consider it then I fail to see what harm has resulted. 5 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: Oh, I agree, for the most part. I was just saying that most such laws do not forbid those items from being considered at a later point in the meeting. 15 minutes ago, Guest Zev said: If the item was on their agenda then they fulfilled the legal requirements; they just deleted it from the agenda, or in our parlance, postponed it indefinitely. Trying to Amend Something Previously Adopted and attach a brand new item to the agenda and bypass the legal requirements by doing so, would in my estimation be an attempt to defeat the purpose of that law. I agree with that too - but part of the purpose of the law, after all, is to let people know if they should attend the meeting. If they attend because they care about a particular item, which they knew would be considered, then a law preventing consideration of that item because of other actions taken at the meeting would waste their time and defeat at least a secondary purpose of the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 25, 2019 at 10:02 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2019 at 10:02 PM 7 hours ago, Joshua Katz said: It seems to me that the OP may well belong to an organization controlled by a sunshine law, which would lead to believing that it is generally true that items must be on the agenda to be considered. However, in reference to the current question, I would recommend looking at the law carefully - it would be unusual (and useless) for it to exclude from consideration an item that appeared on the posted agenda but was struck at the meeting itself. Doing that would, in fact, defeat the purpose of the law. 2 hours ago, Guest Zev said: Exactly. It appears that what we call agenda and what they call agenda are two different things. It is not clear to me whether the organization’s view of the effects of placing (or not placing) an item on the agenda is based upon some rule in applicable law or the organization’s own rules, or if it is simply based on a misunderstanding. Certainly if such rules exist, they will take precedence over RONR, and a careful review of the exact wording of these rules will be necessary to determine what exactly these rules mean. If the rules in question are in applicable law, the assistance of an attorney would be advisable. So far as RONR is concerned, however, removing an item from the agenda, in and of itself, does not prevent consideration of that item at that meeting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SAA Posted March 26, 2019 at 04:20 AM Report Share Posted March 26, 2019 at 04:20 AM Thanks to all for their contributions . Very interesting and a long way indeed for those who are at the 2+2 = 5 level re procedure . While mostly there seems agreement from the many posters to the Forum on this discussion , Mr "Jstackpo" and Mr Martin do not seem entirely agreed on the trajectory of a postponed matter that is struck off, at the time of an agenda approval motion. Which expert is more the expert if that is a correct conclusion, respecting the responses from these kindly helpers ? One conclusion I draw from this is that ( if at all understanding ) a carried motion to strike an item from an agenda , when an agenda is pending for approval, is not necessarily determinative . If " struck " - it may continue to be "struck," , or may not, regardless of its nature , and dependant ( for "no longer" struck ) on the will of a member to bring it back into play . This is a difficult proposition to draw ( understand or appreciate ) from a close read of RONR ( p. 373 , " Change .." ) as the content of Robert's in this respect is skimpy at best . Perhaps a footnote in the text would help somewhat for those not educated in the mysteries of this work . Or perhaps it would be just as well if "Change " only meant additions, and could never allow for taking ( striking ) out . Thanks SAA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts