"Change Agenda"

[Tom Coronite]

Acknowledging that Mr Jstackpo and Mr Martin, and everyone else, for that matter are leaps and bounds beyond me as far as being “experts”...

I’d suggest again that you’d be better served focusing less on the status of the matter “struck” and more on the nature and purpose of the agenda itself.

[jstackpo]

8 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

Mr "Jstackpo" and Mr Martin do not seem entirely agreed...

See the "Advanced Topics" forum (Topic: Postpone Rescind) for more on this "disagreement".

[Josh Martin]

9 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

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  . 

The problem is assuming that an agenda is an exhaustive list of everything that may happen at the meeting. It is not. If an item is struck from the agenda, it remains struck from the agenda, unless the assembly later amends the agenda, but it may still be considered under the appropriate heading after all other items in that heading are completed. I don’t think it is necessary to remove the possibility of striking an item from an agenda. An agenda is often used when an assembly has limited time to complete its business, and in such cases, whether or not an item is listed on the agenda (and if so, what its relative position on the agenda is) may be very important.

With that said, we do get posters asking some variation of this question (May an item struck from the agenda be considered?) with some regularity, so I concur that some additional clarity on this point may be desirable.

9 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

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 ?

Are we in disagreement? It seems to me that we both said the item should come up under General Orders. Dr. Stackpole provided some additional information for the appropriate procedures if the chair fails to announce the motion. I have no disagreement on this. Dr. Stackpole does not appear to have taken a position on exactly when the motion comes up in General Orders, so I don’t know if we disagree about that.

Edited March 26, 2019 at 01:31 PM by Josh Martin