Agenda Issues

[Guest SAA]

Two  items , with  others , on a proposed agenda were :

1. A general  order  that the assembly take an action . This proposal had never been  the subject of an earlier  main motion to go forward ;

and 

2. A matter of  Unfinished  Business that was postponed to the present meeting .

A motion was  made after Call to Order to adopt the agenda ,as proposed . This   was then followed by a motion to amend , the motion to adopt the agenda ,  to strike out both   items  1 and 2 .

The  Chair  allowed the  motion to amend  as applying to the general  order  but not the matter under Unfinished Business . The rationale  given was  that a general   order ( never the subject of a  main motion) can be struck out by a majority vote through amendment.  But the matter of   Unfinished  Business  had been moved at an earlier meeting  , and could not be  struck out - by a motion to amend . Was this correct ?

 

Thank -  you  . 

SAA  

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

Two  items , with  others , on a proposed agenda were :

1. A general  order  that the assembly take an action . This proposal had never been  the subject of an earlier  main motion to go forward ;

and 

2. A matter of  Unfinished  Business that was postponed to the present meeting .

A motion was  made after Call to Order to adopt the agenda ,as proposed . This   was then followed by a motion to amend , the motion to adopt the agenda ,  to strike out both   items  1 and 2 .

The  Chair  allowed the  motion to amend  as applying to the general  order  but not the matter under Unfinished Business . The rationale  given was  that a general   order ( never the subject of a  main motion) can be struck out by a majority vote through amendment.  But the matter of   Unfinished  Business  had been moved at an earlier meeting  , and could not be  struck out - by a motion to amend . Was this correct ?

 

Thank -  you  . 

SAA  

 

 

No.

[Guest SAA]

Thank you very much for the repose of " no "- Mr Honemann . I should have asked for some  reasoning  to go along with  any answer  and with  respect to each point raised . Are you able to add just a bit of  explanation respecting this inquiry . 

Thank-you . 

 

 

[Drake Savory]

I believe the rationale is that a previous session cannot force the current session to take certain actions.  I'm sure other will have a much better way of explaining this but in your case the current session has the right to not consider item #2 in its meeting - even if it ends up killing the motion.

[Dan Honemann]

 

24 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

Thank you very much for the repose of " no "- Mr Honemann . I should have asked for some  reasoning  to go along with  any answer  and with  respect to each point raised . Are you able to add just a bit of  explanation respecting this inquiry . 

Thank-you . 

Tell me more about your organization. How frequently does it meet? 

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

The  Chair  allowed the  motion to amend  as applying to the general  order  but not the matter under Unfinished Business . The rationale  given was  that a general   order ( never the subject of a  main motion) can be struck out by a majority vote through amendment.  But the matter of   Unfinished  Business  had been moved at an earlier meeting  , and could not be  struck out - by a motion to amend . Was this correct ?

No, this is not correct. The assembly may strike either or both of these items if it wishes to do so, although I imagine that (as is often the case) there may be some confusion regarding the effect of striking an item from the agenda.

Even if the item of Unfinished Business was struck from the agenda, it would still be an item of Unfinished Business (and should therefore be taken up automatically after Unfinished Business has been reached and all items on the agenda have been completed). On the other hand, the other item is no longer a general order, but it could still be moved under New Business. (This assumes the assembly has no rules of its own on this matter.) The purpose of an agenda is not to limit what items may be considered at the meeting, but to ensure that the most important items are considered first.

It should also be noted of course, that most assemblies likely need not bother with an agenda and would be served perfectly well by the Standard Order of Business in RONR.

11 minutes ago, Drake Savory said:

I believe the rationale is that a previous session cannot force the current session to take certain actions.  I'm sure other will have a much better way of explaining this but in your case the current session has the right to not consider item #2 in its meeting - even if it ends up killing the motion.

Okay, but unless the assembly has its own rules on this subject, striking the item from the agenda, in and of itself, will not prevent its consideration. (Although the assembly could immediately adopt a motion to adjourn after all business on the agenda was completed.)

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

The purpose of an agenda is not to limit what items may be considered at the meeting, but to ensure that the most important items are considered first.

Is there such a thing as certain types of organizations that have no standard order of business, and by statute, only items that have been served with previous notice and included in the agenda are items that can be considered to the exclusion of anything else?

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Is there such a thing as certain types of organizations that have no standard order of business, and by statute, only items that have been served with previous notice and included in the agenda are items that can be considered to the exclusion of anything else?

Yes, certainly such organizations exist, and if the organization is indeed subject to applicable laws governing this subject, the organization should refer to those laws to determine 1) whether it is in order to remove properly noticed items from the agenda and 2) if so, what is the effect of doing so.

[Atul Kapur]

5 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Is there such a thing as certain types of organizations that have no standard order of business

Even if the organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority, the standard order of business only applies if it has not adopted a special order of business and not if "the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval." (RONR 11th ed., p. 353, ll. 20-22).

[Guest SAA]

Mr Honemann :

The general membership  meets twice annually - approx 500 members  . The Board meets ten times a year and the board produces the draft agenda for the two annual member meetings . Does that help  to allow for  some explanation on the  response as to " no " ?  Robert's Rules are  adopted but few people in the entire assembly have a clue as to  the proper use these rules .The bylaws do not discuss anything respecting the agenda - but use of agenda is a very long standing  custom and practice  . 

Mr Martin : 

I gather, as well, that the answer of Mr. Martin is also " no" . His answer seems to  suggest that  the motion to amend was  applicable  for  both points 1 and 2 . But then Mr. Martin informs  that the postponed  matter ,potentially  remains in play ( ? )- while not on the agenda (?) . I don't understand this as it seems that in striking a matter from the agenda - then that is finished  - it's no longer part of the  business of the meeting . But Mr. Martin seems to suggest it exits to the extent that it can be put back on the agenda  ?  But  why would it ever be " taken up " , and how so  , if it was struck ? This is a bit confusing and perhaps  Mr. Martin could clarify this . As well  I'm trying to understand if Mr. Martin and Mr. Honemann are agreed . ?  If a  motion to amend the  agenda  can strike out a postponed  matter of Unfinished Business it means that the amendment process can be used to defeat a  main motion. I had considered  that a basic  procedural rule is that  one cannot defeat a main motion through the process of amendment ? 

Thanks a lot  for  all  who  have taken time to respond . 

SAA

 

[Dan Honemann]

In view of the fact that there is more than a three month interval between regular meetings of your membership, there is no such thing as a "general order" or an item of "unfinished business" that can come over from a previous meeting. 

 

 

 

[Guest SAA]

Thank -you for the note Mr Honemann . We have  it seems  not been applying  this three motnh rule and will now  have to re-visit this  as well .

I will understand nevertheless that if   member meetings were under three months the answer would be the same " no "  that   you initially offered   as to the ruling of the Chair on points 1 and 2 , and  that Mr. Martin provided  accurate  analysis  . I hope that  is correct  as I do not wish to take up more of the Forum time with those follow up questions  .

 

Thank-you 

SAA

[Dan Honemann]

53 minutes ago, Guest SAA said:

Thank -you for the note Mr Honemann . We have  it seems  not been applying  this three motnh rule and will now  have to re-visit this  as well .

I will understand nevertheless that if   member meetings were under three months the answer would be the same " no "  that   you initially offered   as to the ruling of the Chair on points 1 and 2 , and  that Mr. Martin provided  accurate  analysis  . I hope that  is correct  as I do not wish to take up more of the Forum time with those follow up questions  .

 

Thank-you 

SAA

The answer to your original question is "no", no matter how many months actually intervene between your meetings. The "number of months intervention" question affects proper terminology and the vote required for adoption of the proposed agenda (regardless of whether or not it has been amended).

 

[Josh Martin]

21 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

I gather, as well, that the answer of Mr. Martin is also " no"

Well, the answer is essentially “No, but everyone is probably worrying too much about what is and is not on the agenda.”

21 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

ut then Mr. Martin informs  that the postponed  matter ,potentially  remains in play ( ? )- while not on the agenda (?) . I don't understand this as it seems that in striking a matter from the agenda - then that is finished  - it's no longer part of the  business of the meeting . But Mr. Martin seems to suggest it exits to the extent that it can be put back on the agenda  ?  But  why would it ever be " taken up " , and how so  , if it was struck ? This is a bit confusing and perhaps  Mr. Martin could clarify this . As well  I'm trying to understand if Mr. Martin and Mr. Honemann are agreed . ?  If a  motion to amend the  agenda  can strike out a postponed  matter of Unfinished Business it means that the amendment process can be used to defeat a  main motion. I had considered  that a basic  procedural rule is that  one cannot defeat a main motion through the process of amendment ? 

Well, the fact that this assembly meets less frequently than quarterly means there is no Unfinished Business, since in such assemblies, business which is not finished is not carried over to the next meeting. Additionally, in such assemblies, a general order cannot be created for a future meeting. So neither of these items was anything at the time the agenda was pending. If they had been part of the adopted agenda, they would have been general orders for the meeting. So the chair’s distinction between them was meaningless, and both items could be struck from the agenda.

Unless the assembly has its own rules on this subject, however, there is no requirement that an item of business must be listed on the agenda in order to be considered. After all items on the agenda are completed, members may make motions in New Business.

Edited November 5, 2019 at 11:39 PM by Josh Martin