"Change Agenda"

[Guest SAA]

 

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 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Geiger]

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.

[Guest SAA]

 

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 . 

 

 

 

  

[Tom Coronite]

"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

[jstackpo]

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.

[Josh Martin]

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.

[Richard Brown]

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.

 

[Guest SAA]

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

[jstackpo]

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.

[Guest Zev]

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.

[jstackpo]

Either evaporates or forms a hopelessly opaque cloud. 

[Guest SAA]

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

 

 

[Gary Novosielski]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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

[jstackpo]

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.

[Guest Zev]

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?

[jstackpo]

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

[Guest SAA]

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

 

[Tom Coronite]

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.

[Josh Martin]

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.

[Joshua Katz]

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. 

[Guest Zev]

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.

[Joshua Katz]

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.

[Josh Martin]

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.

[Guest SAA]

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